Janet M. LaRue

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.”

Thus far, only four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have been brazen enough to impose same-sex marriage on a state. Other liberal courts in New York, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Maryland have declined.

But anxiety abounds when marriage is in the hands of a court shameless enough to rule that “a fetus constitutes a part of the mother’s body and, therefore, is a member of her body,” akin to her “ear, tongue and skin.” State v. Sandoval (2003).

Lest anyone criticize their biological buffoonery, they actually said, “we interpret statutes to avoid bizarre or nonsensical results.” Thanks so much for clearing that up.

Still, I’m compelled to ask: If the fetus is like skin, does a woman go into labor or just exfoliate? When the baby kicks, does mom get a ringing in the ear? During the delivery, does the doc say “Stick out your fetus” as if it was a tongue?

Five members of the Sandoval court remain. We can only hope they have greater regard for the biological realities that permit only a man and a woman to unite in marriage.

May the Kerrigan court redeem itself by showing due deference to the Connecticut Constitution and “the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe” it acknowledges.


Janet M. LaRue

Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned for Women; Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families. Be the first to read Janet LaRue's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.