Friday, October 10, 2008

Connecticut High Court Assaults Foundation of US Government

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Connecticut rejected a law that stated that marriage was between a man and a woman.  See story.

Another victory for the gay marriage movement. Social mores are shifting, and perhaps someday someone will give me a logical case for why gays should marry, but I’m not holding my breath. I’m not a reactionary homophobe, but I see the increasing prevalence of homosexuality as more a symptom of societal stress and confused gender roles than a problem in and of itself.

What alarms me more, and should alarm everybody regardless of their opinion towards the gay movement, is the blatant usurpation of the legislative role by the Connecticut court. An activist court has rendered legislation irrelevant and established in it’s place a de facto law that is the exact antithesis of the law passed by constitutional means. The will of the people is not represented by the court. There was no legislative review, and no chance for the State’s Executive to exercise veto power over the pending legislation. It is a law imposed on the people, against the people’s wishes, by the tyranny of the court.

Justice Peter T. Zarella correctly points out that the purpose of marriage laws are to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct." Marriage is a contract, and under contract law it enjoys special status. The only reason for this status is to protect the interests of children and disadvantaged members of the contract.

A marriage contract is freely entered into by two people, but the performance of this contract profoundly affects the lives and well being of children who had no choice or rights when the contract was established. Society for thousands of years has recognized that children are effectively involuntary partners after the fact of the marriage contract, and has moved to ensure that the rights of children under the marriage contract are protected. This is as it should be.

For most of history the biological differences between partners in a marriage contract has implied an inherent inequality in the performance of the contract. In a standard civil contract partners presumably enter the contract on an equal, or agreed upon basis. Contracts are written with the understanding that termination and disposition of a contract shall be commensurate with the equality into which partners entered into the contract. The Female role in a marriage contract of bearing and in most cases raising children puts her at a distinct disadvantage should the partnership be dissolved. Again, society has often recognized this and at least in the west has moved to ensure that the rights of women are protected should the partnership be dissolved. Again, this is as it should be.

Homosexual partnerships by definition do not produce children, and there is no inherent bias towards one or the other partner in their ability to provide for themselves should the partnership be dissolved. This negates the primary purpose for the establishment of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract partnerships have enjoyed several privileges in society that are unique.   Medical notification and decision making assumes a spouse has a primary interest and responsibility. There are tax advantages if only one partner works. Inheritance makes assumptions regarding marital status. These privileges are not unique to a marriage contract, the only unique feature is that they are assumed to exist without question with a marriage contract. There are legal methods of establishing all of these privileges between two people without resorting to marriage.

The lawsuit which led to this insane decision alleged that the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage. Now I’m no expert of the Connecticut Constitution, but I’m willing to bet that nowhere does it guarantee social and emotional equality. These are quite distinct issues from legal equality, and unenforceable by any government agent. Following this standard logically, you don’t need to go far before you start requiring thought police.

In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer becomes incoherent when he observes that “. . . gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice."  Judge Palmer, what does “otherwise qualified” mean?   To me it means that the parties lack a critical qualification! Which qualifications is the court going to hold as critical and which will it choose to discard to further a liberal agenda.  Homosexuals are qualified to marry, except for their obvious gender similarity.  Suppose I want to marry a seven year old girl? According to Judge Palmer, we are otherwise qualified, except for her age. Or maybe I want to marry three or four women? I am otherwise qualified, except for my existing marital status. 

To pile outrage on outrage, State Sen. Michael Lawlor expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year to codify the Supreme Court ruling. WHAT!!?? The legislature is going to rubber stamp the Supreme court law? These legislators should be howling in anger that their responsibility under the constitution has been usurped by the court, effectively rendering the legislature irrelevant! Instead they are rolling over like the good lap dogs they are and begging the court to rub their belly! 

When the government ceases to follow the rulebook and starts inventing itself as it goes along, it’s time for the electorate to remind them who serves who, and throw the lot of them out. Connecticut citizens should be demanding their state representatives to impeach the judicial panel, and if that fails, the legislature should be thrown out in it’s entirety come November, and a new lot placed in it’s stead who will support the people and return Connecticut to a constitutionally governed state. People get the government they deserve, and I refuse to believe that the people of the great state of Connecticut have fallen so far that they deserve judicial despotism.

No comments:

Post a Comment