ONE-YEAR ANNIV. OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CT: Hartford Courant

blogs:

In a 4-3 decision delivered on Oct. 10, 2008, the state Supreme Court ushered in a new era in the state when it ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry.

Nearly one year later, state Sen. Andrew McDonald said it's a milestone worth celebrating. "Connecticut can mark this anniversary secure in the knowledge that all of us have been enriched by eliminating discriminatory aspects of our law,'' the Stamford Democrat said in a phone interview this afternoon.

"In many respects, the most remarkable aspect of the anniversary is that it is such a non-issue for the vast majority of Connecticut citizens. They're not threatened by marriage equality," McDonald added.

But Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut sees the events of the past year differently. The court case, Kerrigan et al v. the Commissioner of Public Health, helped spark a wave of religious intolerance at the state Capitol, he said.

"There's a changed environment when it comes to religious liberties in the state of Connecticut,'' Wolfgang said. Since the court ruling, it's been "open season" on religious freedom, he said.

Wolgang cites what he views as three attempts by state lawmakers to undermine that freedom: a proposal to change the governance of the Catholic church, an investigation by state ethics officials into what it initially called lobbying by the church and the official codification of the court's ruling.

The church governance bill was pulled, the ethics complaint dropped and the codification bill ultimately included an exemption for religious organizations opposed to same-sex marriage.

"We won all three but that these attacks were even launched is a cause for grave concern,'' Wolfgang said.

more

Labels: Connecticut, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:26 PM VOTE

Two Older Posts by Walter Olson

which we're just finding now (sorry!):

Response to Maggie Gallagher's proposal for a tort against commercial establishments which explicitly seek to profit from adultery;

Response to Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, on the reasons behind "the absurd and unconstitutional proposal floated in Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee to order the Roman Catholic Church to turn its governance over to boards of laypeople."

Labels: adultery, Connecticut, gay marriage, NOM, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:09 PM VOTE

CATHOLICS ARGUE FOR RIGHT TO REFUSE GOODS, SERVICES: Hartford Courant

reports:

No one is arguing that a Catholic priest should have to perform a gay marriage.

But the church says that doesn't go far enough.

The Connecticut Catholic Conference is asking lawmakers to expand the category of those who don't have to comply with the state's new same-sex marriage law if their religion holds that such unions are wrong.

People such as florists, wedding photographers and justices of the peace. ...

The judiciary committee hearing is likely the final chance opponents will have to put up obstacles to gay marriage. But several lawmakers oppose extending the religious exemption. Sen. John Kissel is Catholic and has long shared his church's opposition to gay marriage.

"I've been with you guys all along," said Kissel, a Republican from Enfield. But, "we're at a fork in the road and I have to let go of your hand."

A law preventing a Catholic caterer from serving guests at a same-sex marriage could also be used by a Protestant baker who doesn't want to sell a cake to a Catholic father for his son's first communion, Kissel said. "It could just as easily turn against each and every Catholic in the state of Connecticut."

more

Labels: Connecticut, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:38 AM VOTE