Connecticut High Court Assaults Foundation of US Government

You write "In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Connecticut rejected a law that stated that marriage was between a man and a woman."

Um, no, not quite. The decision was 4-3 (not 5-4), and the court did NOT reject marriage between men and women. The court went to pains to point out that heterosexual persons would still be able to marry opposite-sex partners, and that nothing in their decision in any way nullifies marriages between men and women. The court made it clear that this decision will EXPAND the right to marry, just as the US Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) EXPANDED the right to marry (prior to this decision, marriage was defined by state legislatures as a union between a man and a woman of the same race).

Your entire column is predicated on outdated stereotypes about the roles of men and women in modern society. Men and women are no longer unequal to each other, and many women choose not to have children at all (don't worry, the US population is currently estimated to be about 303 million, and will rise to 400 million by 2029). Times change -- something that you appear to be unwilling to accept, or unwilling to factor into your analysis. Women have attained a degree of equality that they did not previously enjoy.

The court looked at the position that women were in when the US Supreme Court held, in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), that women were a "quasi-suspect" class. The court then compared the political strength of women with the political strength of gay persons, noting that no openly gay person has yet been elected to the US Senate; no openly gay person has yet been voted to a statewide position in CT; only two openly gay men serve in the US House of Representatives; no openly gay person has been appointed to a US Cabinet position; no openly gay person has been appointed to a US Court of Appeals; etc...

(continued)

Women, on the other hand, have been represented in ALL of the above positions. It is therefore entirely logical to subject classifications on the basis of sexual orientation to AT LEAST the same degree of scrutiny as is applied to classifications on the basis of sex. The court therefore applied "quasi-strict scrutiny" to the prohibition against gay marriage, finding that it could not survive such scrutiny.

The court also noted the pernicious and irrational hatred that is directed towards gay persons, noting that "the discrimination that gay persons have suffered has been so pervasive and severe...that it is highly unlikely that legislative enactments alone will suffice to eliminate that discrimination." These are PRECISELY the circumstances under which the courts are supposed to intervene (see United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)).

Far from "assaulting" the foundations of US government, the court did what courts of law have a long and proud history of doing -- which is to enforce the concept of the equal protection of the laws. When did you last hear of a minority that is hated to the degree that gay persons are hated receiving a fair shake from the democratic process?

The governor of CT made it clear, on Friday, that she would abide by, and uphold, this ruling. The legislature will apply the principles of this ruling to establish marriage equality in the State of Connecticut.

Fortunately, this state does not allow direct amendment of its constitution by the voters at the polls. There is thus no likelihood of this decision being overturned any time soon by the democratic process. Furthermore, as gay marriages endure, so the public becomes increasingly accepting of the concept.

Face it -- gay marriage is here to stay.

And justice, at last, is advancing.


PHILIP

There is nothing "incoherent" about the following statement, excerpted from the majority opinion:

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice."

The "otherwise qualified" phrase refers to the criteria that must be met before two people may be married -- these criteria include consent, adulthood, no currently existing marriage, no incestuous relationship, etc. Your jibe about adults marrying children is therefore wholly without support.

Do you know what bothers me about people who criticize decisions such as this one? These people NEVER READ THE DECISIONS! I find myself compelled to ask the columnist -- DID YOU BOTHER TO READ THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF? I actually took the time and effort to read both the majority decision, and the three dissents. What struck me was the extent to which the majority engaged in meticulous research and careful application of legal principles. This decision was not plucked from thin air -- it was the result of serious effort and careful analysis. Even the dissent authored by Justice Borden referred to the majority opinion as "eloquently written."

READ THE DECISION, and I will be happy to debate you!

PHILIP CHANDLER