Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
Written by Sam on October 11th, 2008
Gay marriage is not a huge issue for me. My philosophy is to each their own. If two gay people want to be married that has no bearing on my life. If the elected representatives of a state want to legalize the practice then so be it. The problem is that here in Connecticut, as has been the case with California and Massachusetts, is that is not what has happened. Activist judges have legislated from the bench and forced these decisions on the people, instead of forging the way through the democratic process. In the case of Connecticut, four people made this decision for the three and a half million that live there and their reasoning isn’t even that sound in my opinion. It sounds more like an affirmative action decision than anything else.
Insofar as gay persons play a role in the political process, it is apparent that their numbers reflect their status as a small and insular minority. It recently has been noted that, of the more than one-half million people who hold a political office at the local, state and national level, only about 300 are openly gay persons. . . No openly gay person ever has been appointed to a United States Cabinet position or to any federal appeals court, or served in the United States Senate, and only two currently serve in the United States House of Representatives. . . . Gay persons also lack representation in the highest levels of business, industry and academia. For example, no openly gay person heads a Fortune 500 company. . . . By any standard, therefore, gay persons ‘‘remain a political underclass in our [state and] nation.’’
It was a four to three decision and the four justices that wrote for the majority opinion were all appointed to the courts by Republican governors.
11
PM
Actually, this decision framework makes sense to a certain degree. I’m not saying I agree with it. However, there is an idea rooted in the founding of the country that the role of the courts, in part, is to speak for those who cannot speak politically. The idea of having a branch of government that was not politically elected was to check the general populous. Again, I’m not saying I agree with it. But it isn’t so unusual, and I probably wouldn’t call it an affirmative action program. What the court is saying here is because gay people cannot voice their “right” to marriage in a political manner because of their small numbers, they have the right to use the court system to do it.
11
PM
The Connecticut Supreme Court is serving a purpose the drafters of the Constitution saw for US Supreme Court, protecting a minority from a majority tyranny. Since equal protection applies to the states, the case for denying gay marriage is rests on very shaky constitutional ground barring a national amendment.
Beyond the constitutional argument, there is no public policy justification for barring gay marriage that is based on hard facts. There is very little research on why gay marriage might be harmful to society that is not theological or philosophical. Until there is evidence rooted in statistics for banning gay marriage, it should be allowed.
19
PM
Legislators are elected by the majority. Courts exist in part to protect minorities who do not necessarily have any legislators representing their interests. How is this court decision different from other decisions that have affirmed the rights of minorities?