The Connecticut Supreme Court last Friday issued a 4-3 decision in favor of eight same-sex couples, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Connecticut already has recognized same-sex couples by granting what it deemed civil unions, which the decision ruled was a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Many claimed the decision was a triumph of civil rights as had been other historic decisions that overturned laws banning interracial marriage and relegating blacks to separate but so-called equal public status. In fact, Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the majority, suggested: “Like these once-prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”
Following the lead of the Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts, the four justices have apparently “yielded to a more contemporary appreciation of rights” by imposing same-sex marriage upon the citizens of Connecticut by judicial fiat.
The Connecticut Supreme Court decision was quickly denounced by the Connecticut Catholic Conference and Catholic bishops of the state, who issued a statement that read in part: “This decision is in direct conflict with the position of our state legislature and courts of other states, and is a terribly regrettable exercise in judicial activism.” The decision by the court isn’t simply the extension of rights to individuals, but in fact redefines the institution of marriage. In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted civil union legislation that expanded certain rights to same-sex couples but also recognized the uniqueness of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. It is not the purview of the judicial branch of government to determine the so-called “contemporary” interpretation of public views but rather the legislative branch.
Marriage is an institution that serves the common good of society. It is not an entitlement nor is it a civil right. The Connecticut Supreme Court justices have chosen to bypass the legislative process and ignore common sense in making their faulty decision. This case was not about rights and discrimination, as these issues were addressed in the earlier civil union legislation, but about imposing the acceptance of a radical agenda to redefine marriage and family life in our nation. The majority decision now creates a very real encroachment upon religious liberty and freedom of speech for those who uphold the authentic and traditional understanding of marriage.
Common sense was cast aside in the majority decision, which chose to redefine rather than recognize the authentic definition of marriage. We suggest that in their quest to end discrimination in marriage that the majority listen to Justice Peter Zarella who so correctly stated in his dissent: “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.”
