Another Domino Against Traditional Marriage Falls in Connecticut

My very good friend, Eric who is from Connecticut, emailed me an article just now about how the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to get married.

The article, ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_gay_marriage ) reports that a case of eight couples who sued in 2004 after they tried to get wedding licenses and failed are now legally allowed to be married under Connecticut state law after a 4-3 decision by that state's Supreme Court. Unlike Prop 8 in California, it is unlikely that the Connecticut decision will be up for a vote this election, or any other.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," said Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."

Here is what the three judges who voted against same sex marriage had to say:

Three justices issued separate dissenting opinions.

Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and that the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."

Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. 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."

The ruling cannot be appealed to federal courts because it deals with state constitutional issues, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

If our amendment in California does not pass, then it is likely that what the White House had to say today on the Connecticut ruling will surely happen:

The White House reacted to the ruling by again raising the prospect of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"It's unfortunate that activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people," Karl Zinsmeister, President Bush's domestic policy adviser, said in a written statement. "Today's decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment may be needed if the people are to decide what marriage means."

If we cannot win on the state level now, it will be much harder if it does go to the Federal level. Let's keep doing all we can to get that Yes vote on Prop 8 this November!

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/