The Connecticut Supreme Court may foist same-sex marriage on its citizens when it issues its landmark ruling in Kerrigan and Mock v. Commissioner of Public Health, which is expected Jan. 11. The state’s largest newspaper, and the oldest in the nation, The Hartford Courant, hasn’t covered the case on its news pages since it was argued last May. But that doesn’t mean the paper has kept its bias in the closet.

The Family Institute of Connecticut notes on its blog: “For months now the paper has made no mention of the Kerrigan case. And, of course, it ignored FIC’s Rally for Liberty, which brought 300 people to the state Capitol on a Wednesday morning last September to defend marriage and self-government.” 

Just recently, the Courant’s Lifestyle section sounded support with a sycophantic slant piece about Elizabeth Kerrigan and Joanne Mock, the lead plaintiffs and their adopted six-year-old twin boys, Fernando and Carlos: “At issue is whether marriage applies to all citizens, or if it’s an institution reserved strictly for heterosexuals. The state of Connecticut currently offers civil unions — marriage lite — but civil unions don’t go far enough, and separate is never equal.” Susan Campbell, “Already a Family but Marriage Would Make It Complete,” Hartford Courant, Dec. 30, 2007. 

Even the Mansons would have embraced Campbell’s sappy sentiment about “love and family.” The bedrock of society shouldn’t be watered down to include any group that calls itself a “family.”

Despite Campbell’s protestations to the contrary, “marriage applies to all citizens” equally. Connecticut limits everyone to wedding the opposite sex.

The Lifestyle section also carried a fund raising ad for a same-sex marriage lobbying group last Dec. 17, offering T-shirts touting, “marriage is so gay.”

What Campbell’s paean to “gay” marriage does well is expose the phony claim by advocates of same-sex marriage that it’s all about benefits and rights.

Connecticut law grants the same benefits and rights to same-sex civil unions as it does to married couples:

Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Conn Gen. Stats. § 46b-38nn (2007)

The fact that the law doesn’t include heterosexuals escapes Campbell’s concern that “separate is never equal”: “A person is eligible to enter into a civil union if such person is … Of the same sex as the other party to the civil union.”

The FIC further notes that a reader calling himself “in the know” posted this comment following Campbell’s column: “It’s pretty well known that the SP’s on the Ct. Supreme Ct.-Katz, Palmer, Norcott have put together a majority opinion in favor of gay marriage.” Continued...