Featured Sponsors
Recently Posted
RSS This Blog
In Connecticut the ruling was based on faulty reasoning but at least the outcome does nothing to disturb the instituion of marriage. Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled against the radical homosexual activists who brought the lawsuit. This essentially prevented a "Massachusetts" from happening. No judges edict reading something into the law that's not there. HOWEVER she ruled so because she reasoned that the civil unions in the state are sufficiently enough like marriage to no longer cause a supposed conflict with the "equal protection" clause. What she should have ruled is something similar to what the judges said in the New York case a few weeks ago. "children have a rational basis for needing both a mother and father."
In Nebraska the news was even better. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Disctrict Judge (WHACKO) Joseph Bataillon. Battaillon had ruled that the voter approved definition of marriage in that state was too broad and deprived homosexuals of "participation in political process." HOGWASH! And the 8th Circuit Court agreed saying that a state's right to limit state-recognized marriage is "rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore DOES NOT violate the Constitution of the United States. Nebraska voters approved their present definition of marriage by 70% of the vote.
And in other state marriage issues... Tennessee voters WILL get to vote on the definition of marriage in their state in November. Massachusetts voters will have to wait now until 2008.
