I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but I reside in Connecticut.  So, today’s state Supreme Court ruling that overturned the gay marriage ban and the recently passed civil union legislation…well, it doesn’t actually affect me at all.  But it does affect many gay people who would like to get married.

In her analysis earlier, Claudia stated:

Essentially they came to the blindingly obvious conclusion that separate is not equal.

Going into reading the decision, that too was my assumption, as that’s how I had seen the civil union law.  The court, however, went further, and saw the civil union law as creating a secondary class that was quite a bit lower in status.  Essentially, the didn’t see it as “separate but equal,” they saw it as less than equal:

Accordingly, we reject the trial court’s conclusion
that marriage and civil unions are ‘‘separate’’ but ‘‘equal’’
legal entities; Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public
Health, supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 664; and that it therefore
‘‘would be the elevation of form over substance’’; id.,
667; to conclude that the constitutional rights of same
sex couples are implicated by a statutory scheme that
restricts them to civil unions. Although marriage and
civil unions do embody the same legal rights under
our law, they are by no means ‘‘equal.’’ As we have
explained, the former is an institution of transcendent
historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
latter most surely is not. Even though the classifications
created under our statutory scheme result in a type of
differential treatment that generally may be characterized
as symbolic or intangible, this court correctly has
stated that such treatment nevertheless ‘‘is every bit as
restrictive as naked exclusions’’; Evening Sentinel v.
National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26, 35,
357 A.2d 498 (1975); because it is no less real than more
tangible forms of discrimination, at least when, as in
the present case, the statute singles out a group that
historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance,
ridicule or worse.

Now, if I have dissent against this opinion, it’s the argument they used here.  Much of the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious teaching.  Yet, here the court uses the “marriage is part of the culture and they should have it too” argument.  Is that not just as ridiculous?  Yet, that is one of their arguments.

Of course, they then go on to discuss whether or not the constitution provides for equal protection for gay couples, and come to the conclusion:

“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,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

The dissent was largely based on one of the court defining what marriage is versus the legislature.  More or less, a “judicial activism” argument:

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” Zarella wrote. “If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.”

Now, I agree with the concept of gay marriage, though I do like the proposals some have made of throwing government out of marriage entirely.  Make everybody legally have to go for civil unions, and then let them do whatever ceremony they want after that.

I do, however, disagree with the cultural argument.  It’s essentially what opponents of gay marriage have been using, but in reverse.  This is a civil rights issue, and trying to inject culture into it seems counterproductive to me.

I wish they had gone on a separate but equal argument, but if you read the part of the decision I quoted, apparently that classification is legal in Connecticut?  I think I need to do more reading.