Liberty And Justice got together and bore forth Freedom!?!

Connecticut Ruling Brings Us One Step Closer To Supreme Court Showdown

If you have not heard, in a 4-3 split, the same sex marriage ban in Connecticut has been overturned based on their State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, stating, "As a quasi-suspect class, gay persons, no less than women, are entitled to a more searching judicial review of that statutory prohibition, as well as any other classification that singles them out for discriminatory treatment" They didn't rule on the validity of Civil Unions which have existed by Legislative Action in Connecticut since 2005. You can read more via TowleRoad, Human Rights Campaign. Eventually, as all of these cases are going to a head and will need to be reviewed to the Federal Courts. We are going to have two issues at play:

Full Faith And Credit Clause

Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4 Section 1) of the Constitution of The United States of America explicitly states that: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Right now with the Defense of Marriage Act in placed limits on States and the Federal Government from recognizing Same Sex Marriage performed in other States or Countries. DOMA also limits GLBT partners from being able to both have those protections of marriage if lets say one of the partners or a child ends up in the hospital while traveling outside of their home state or even dissolve their unions at a future date if the situation warrants after they have moved to another State.

Judicial Review and the Role of Scrutiny

The issue at hand is not whether the Court has the jurisdiction but do they have the right to interpret scrutiny from one precedent to another case, in other words was the scrutiny intended by the Court to be universal or case specific. An interpretation the Supreme Court, as cited in several lower Court rulings, has been used to both maintain gay discrimination and overturn anti discrimination ordinances, laws, and workplace issues alike.

Scrutiny has also been a deciding factor in the final outcome of a case in that while the merits of the case are compelling the Courts to further consider civil protection of a class,or group, or social association, and overrule government action or legislation; but then determine, based on the level of judicial scrutiny applied by a particular Courts discretion, the bad law or action is allowed to continue because "their level of scrutiny didn't elevate to "heightened or intermediate versus a suspect classification, a stricter standard of review, namely, "that sexual orientation is liable for substantive due process violations is a suspect classification". Or as the Connecticut ruling stipulates, "infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection"

Trying to figure out what it all means for us

Why do the Courts keep insisting on issuing small booklet rulings? I have a migraine now. I realize that there is a certain commentary that is necessary based on precedent citation in order to achieve a factual basis for a new finding of facts or stipulation or towards interpretation; however some of this is ridiculously lengthy and could be attached into appendixes rather than the actual opinion. Or maybe they could issue a summary page in order to communicate better with the common citizen. We complain about the laws not being more simple and understandable and yet we have judges who write out opinions that are more lengthy than some of the Bail Out Bills and Pork Barrel Spending floating through Congress. Now dont get me wrong, I appreciate the Courts decision in more ways than I can count my fingers and toes, but the ruling is not decisive enough to withstand Federal Court scrutiny against the Defense Of Marriage Act which is the real struggle facing GLBTIQAS partners.

Why the Libertarian Philosophy is better than the two party status quota

The Libertarian Philosophy "government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships" is pretty simple and leads directly to the pointe. The Libertarian Philosophy restores the freedom to associate oneself with whomever and however many people the individual chooses to by basic legal contract, as long as all parties are equal in the relationship.

Our Candidate for President Bob Barr of Georgia, who originally authored DOMA stated emphatically "Standing before you, looking you in the eye, the Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law-abiding, American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed," (Source: SOUTHERN VOICE), as he accepted the Libertarian Party's nomination. He also expalined, in a Wall Street Journal Opinion Editorial back in June, that he will do away with Dont Ask Dont Tell and begin to proceed with inclusion of gay and lesbian members into the Military ranks completely. You dont get either John McCain or Barack Obama to take a stand, and in fact they try to run far away, on either one of these important issues of equality for all Americans. Isnt it time to make a real choice? The choice for your liberty and your childrens freedom.

Is there another answer to the arguments against Gay Marriage?

Now there are currently four states that allow same sex marriage; with this recent decision, we are well on the way to seeing justice in action and liberty giving birth again in this country to freedom and that speaks directly to my heart. I am an avid supporter of Multiple Partner Relationships. I believe Group Marriage is stabilizing because it increases the mutual support of the children and is conducive to each individual parent to better provide for the children and each other. To read more about Group Marriage (right click the link) or consider picking up a copy of The West Bank Group by Henry Sackerman (1970)