Gay marriage in CT divides religious

Thanks to Mr Sinkford and Ms Russell for their encouraging statements.
I think the CT court decision is great !!! 3 down, 47 to go. Eventually all states will allow Gay Marriage and the only reason that it has will continue to take a very long time is that we are opposed by people whose hearts and souls are filled with hatred. Their hatred is matched only by hitler and the nazi party of WW II.

Laws prohibiting those churches whose religious beliefs support equal marriage from marrying same-sex couples interfere with freedom of religion, while laws recognizing the civil marriage rights of same-sex couple do not interfere with anyone's religious beliefs, as the state cannot force a church to perform a marriage ceremony that it opposes. It is a confession of failure when a church seeks to have its beliefs imposed on others through the operation of law and the power of the state -- if the church's doctrine cannot, by the force of its message and ideas, persuade and lead, something is wrong.

On this issue, the something that is wrong is the denial of the full humanity of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers, and the truth and reality of the loving and lasting relationships that they form. Someone once said that "homosexuality didn't even make it into the top ten!" But "love your neighbor" certainly did, and on this happy day, we can celebrate the triumph of this timeless principle.

God's judgement will come on us as it is probably here now. The winter may be cruel to the Solomites of New England. You who endorse this nonsense will live to regret what God, not the figment of Unitarians and other false people, will do in answer to this over-stepped and damnable Court has done.

This issue has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of civil law only. The court was correct to allow marriage rights for all. The fact that this is a state-by-state issue is confusing since the expansion of a civil right to all citizens goes to the constitution. And, in light of the Catholic Church's hideous handling of the child rape issue, they should be the last entity to make any waves about committed adults entering into monogamous relationships.

Crap, crap, and more crap. Unbelievable.
The natural law is right - it's biology people.

Conservatives are messed up. Oh well, there will always be conservatives raining on our gay parades...so who cares. They are the ones who lose, by concerning themselves with things which gain them nothing, and which don't affect them at all. Very sad. They should just be happy with their heterosexual relationships and move on.

If it's about "natural law," then any hetero couple that cannot bear children should not be granted a marriage. Go tell a man or woman that's having trouble conceiving children that their so-called marriage is merely a civil union because, obviously, God doesn't want them to have children. And don't forget all the older people that are past child-bearing age, sorry...

Sound crazy? Exactly.

The Natural Law? Humans are removed from the Natural law fool. We do not follow mating season or migratory patterns. We are creatures of reason and are supposed to use our reason, not instints. This is a nation built on constitutional law, not the "natural law".

Also go take a biology class again, cause you sure don't get it.

If we really believe that all people are created equal we must first believe that we are all people. As such we must define what people are. How do we do that? What makes us human? Literally it is biology. By denying biology we deny our humanity. By denying our humanity how can we expect things like "human rights" let alone "civil rights". Our humanity is fundamental to our equality. Deny one you must deny the other. To quote JFK, "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." The reason we can all be proud of our equality is not because we make us equal.. it is because we are made equal it is inate.

But it's possible that their sexes could have children no? It's not about the individuals, but the sexes themselves, idiots. There are always exceptIons.

Why should they get special preference because they have sex with the same sex? I'm a lefty and I want to marry my sister, why can't I? I can't choose whether I'm a lefty, I'm born that way, so I should get special rights...

BTW - voted for Clinton - twice. The pro-gay group tries to portray the anti-gay marriage as right-wing nuts, and lots of them are middle-of-the road Democrats and Republicans.

i m not surprised the catholics spoke out against this decision.they are the height of hypocrisy. the church with the gay priests , bishops and pope will cover-up for gay child molesters while seeking to persecute openly gay honest decent people.this is just one of many evils perpetrated on society by the catholics. it is a great sin for them to make people hate god. pray that they will repent and stop worshipping idols.

You so called religious people make me chuckle.. love thy neighbor - unless they are gay. You shouldn't be concerned what other people do in their bedrooms. You should be concerned how the church handles their hypocrisy.

# 10:
"I'm a lefty and I want to marry my sister, why can't I?"

Apples and oranges ...

Marriage is not the means by which people conceive children (see Bristol Palin), nor a prerequisite to adoption (see Oprah). It is, fundamentally, a formalized commitment between 2 people (or more, in some cultures & times). It has been a way to bond tribes, set inheritance, and, very importantly, insure care in one's infirmity or old age, among other results and benefits.
In the US, our social compact (government and cultural institutions) has obviated, supplemented, or replaced many of these traditional byproducts of marriage. There are legal and monetary benefits which our country has conferred only upon “married” individuals, and which recognize the transition to a societal responsibility with common, taxpayer support: social security with inheritance and survivor benefits, implied spousal legal standing, and additional support for child rearing.
Some of these benefits are available through contractual agreements, but hetero couples don’t have to show their marriage license at the hospital door or the schoolhouse, nor do they risk getting evicted if the one who dies owns the house or had the pension or social security. It isn’t religion, it is basic fairness, in a system to which we ALL pay taxes.
This is why I, as a one-marriage, heterosexual man with children, support any legal entity which gives _all_ legal and societal rights to committed couples of any gender.

I know it IS Connecticut and all, but aren't there any non-Christian religious leaders who also had opinions? The post wasn't quite as in-depth as the subject line suggested.