Hard to Guess? I got this in the mail almost instantaneously:

View this Press Release online at:
http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?i=PR08J02&f=PR08J02
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 10, 2008 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy
or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS

Connecticut Supreme Court Imposes Same-Sex 'Marriage'

WASHINGTON, D.C. -Family Research Council Action today
sharply criticized the Connecticut Supreme Court for its
decision to impose the legalization of same-sex
"marriages"'in the state of Connecticut.

"It's outrageous and shameful that the Connecticut Supreme
Court took it upon itself to legislate from the bench," said
FRC Action President Tony Perkins. "This radical
redefinition of marriage will have severe consequences for
children, families, religious liberties, businesses and
every facet of society as we know it.

"This decision puts marriage at risk all across the nation
and highlights the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. It is imperative both
Presidential candidates address the problems created by four
activist judges in Connecticut. We call on Senators John
McCain and Barack Obama to explain what they would do as
President addressing the issue of same-sex marriage and
articulating their criteria for ensuring that judges they
appoint follow the law of the land and not legislate from
the bench.

Family Research Council had filed an amicus brief in the
case to help insure the preservation of one-man, one-woman
marriage in the state of Connecticut and we will continue to
do so in cases across the nation that directly threaten the
family."

To view or download the brief, please visit our website
www.frc.org.
- 30 -

Don't be so sure about it not having national implications. Opposition to gay marriage is still one of the best get-out-the-vote tools that Republicans have.

I live in Virginia, and two years ago when the New Jersey courts ruled that the state couldn't deny gay couples marriage rights, signs went up all over the place saying something to the effect of "Remember New Jersey! Vote to Protect Marriage!" These signs outnumbered all the other political signs I saw combined, to the point where I seriously considered just taking one as a reminder of just how crazy some people can be.

Well, of course they will. Wonder how this will play out in Connecticut,which used to be a fairly purple state. 538 calls it 98% likely to go for Obama, though, so I guess there's been some improvement since the days of Prescott and Reagan landslides.

Steve,
I hope you're right, but I'm not hopeful for us here in FL, nor for those in CA. Having lived in FL for 48 of my 50 years, I'm not optimistic. It looks like CA may also be in trouble. However, that being said, when my partner of 11+ years and I go to NY for Christmas, we now will probably go to CT rather the MA.

My sister in Connecticut just called me in Hawaii with the news. She asked, "So you and [partner] are going to move back here now, right? RIGHT? You guys are coming home now, right?" She, her husband, and three kids are all ecstatic.

So far it hasn't garnered much national attention. Hell, I didn't know until Prup mentioned it in comments on the roundup! The Right will no doubt use this news to bolster the fear vote and obscure the Troopergate report. But somehow, given the craptastic economy, I doubt it will get any press time outside of Connecticut and Christofascist hate rallies. Reasonable people have bigger things to worry about right now than a couple of gay folks getting married in another state.

This will rile the anthill. You thought wingnuts were crazed before, now they'll most certainly blow their top.

Thanks, Steve. I was hoping you'd mention this, but I was expecting it in your daily round-up later.

Hubby and I did the legal thing (thanks, Canada) more than four years ago. We're coming up on our 17th anniversary, as far as our families, friends and us are concerned.

People should be more outraged by the Greenspan/Bush and McCain/Gramm unholy alliances than by the marriage of "Adam and Steve."

This may be the best news the McSame campaign has had for months. Bank on them running multiple ads nationally to try and pump up the anti-gay vote. It may be enough to get wins in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio, or at least get them close enough to steal.

-Z

OK, so the damn Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriages, and I'm supposed to be happy about it because I'm a good liberal.

But let me tell you, buddy, this is a pocketbook issue for me. If all those gay New Yorkers start skipping across the state line for quicky marriages instead of coming to the Cape where all God-fearing gay folks OUGHT to get hitched, we're gonna have to go back to just catering to old folks on bus tours and those French Canadians who think we ought to thank them just for showing up on our pathetic sandbar and not spending any money. And that's gonna get ugly.

Listen, should people be more up-in-arms about the McCain/Gramm unholy alliance than about gay marriage? Absolutely- without question. Unfortunately, as Thomas Frank's book _What's The Matter With Kansas_ points out, the GOP has used G-d, gays, + guns to get people to vote against their own economic interests for literally decades. That strategy just may have enough legs to get McSame a few more votes in key states this year.

I hope I'm wrong, but you know the old saw about never losing money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

-Z

What out with the "sky isn't falling" comment. Chances are there are conservative churches preaching even now from the pulpit that it's the states allowing gay marriages that has caused this evil economic situation.

It doesn't matter what people in Conn. say. Gays who get "married" aren't really married because not only do 47 other states NOT recognize what they call marriage but the federal government does not either. That means no tax exemptions or deductions and if they move here, they are still SINGLE. Gays aren't being discriminated against in other states. They can marry ANYBODY of the opposite sex that they desire, just that they have to realize that it is not really a marriage if it is the same sex. What is next? Can people marry dogs in that state now? What about 3 or 4 people at the same time. It is all just has wrong and immoral.

Russ,

Grow up. How can something be immoral if it doesn't harm anyone? There are even some things that do harm, but aren't considered immoral because they embody a higher value (example: the Allies killed many German civilians by bombing Germany in WWII, but the bombing is still not usually considered immoral). But if something doesn't hurt anybody, how can it even possibly be wrong by any rational way of thinking? If gay marriage is "immoral", the terms "morality" and "immorality" have little meaning.

And by the way, I don't know why anyone would want to marry a dog, but what would be wrong with polygamy "3 or 4 people" either?

Well, if you see nothing wrong with marrying multiple partners, than you state the obvious. You do not know what you are talking about. It ABSOLUTELY does hurt others when gays "marry". It proposes to society that this is to be accepted. By difinition; marriage is between one man and one woman. If it is anything else, it is not really marriage. Call it what you will, it is not a marriage. It HURTS society. Everytime that a man "marries" another man, society is brought that much further down.
Children MUST NOT be taught that this is to be accepted. It is wrong. Moral? that is up to you to decide, I suppose. But it is absolutely not right.

Russ,

Our society is governed (at least supposedly) by the notion that personal freedom is a sacred virtue, to be restricted only when the harm done by the exercise of the freedom outweighs the goodness of the freedom itself (for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected by free speech). If you're going to assert that gay marriage, polygamy, or any other personal behavior hurts society and should not be allowed, the burden is on you to prove that these things do harm. A gay couple who wants to get married doesn't have to show that their marriage wouldn't harm society--it's up to you and others who think like you to show it would.

And how, exactly, is society "brought that much further down" by same-sex marriage? How have Canada, South Africa, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands been "brought down" by allowing same sex couples to marry? The whole notion is ridiculous bullshit. Spewing nonsense a zillion times over doesn't make it any more true than it was to begin with.