Friday, October 10, 2008

A victory for human rights ... I should be toasting this

The Connecticut State Supreme Court Friday that same-sex couples can get married. On a day when the stock market burrowed deeper into a recession state of mind. On a day when John McCain's campaign staff had the unmitigated gall to accuse Barack Obama of "attacking" the McCain supporters whom had called out "kill him" in reference to Obama during a campaign rally, just because Barack said that the McCain campaign was using fear tactics to get people riled up. And on a day when SNL caved and allowed Sarah Palin onto the show. There was this blinding strike of justice across the land.

Those four justices—Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, Richard Palmer and Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper, sitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused herself—realized that a state constitution which guarantees its citizens with equal protection under the law HAD TO ALLOW same-sex couples to marry. It was a courage and a wisdom too often unfound and unwielded in this country right now.

According to the ruling as quoted in the Hartford Courant "the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's 'understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.'"

"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," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

In one of three three separate dissents, Justice Peter Zarella said: "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 decisionfor the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

I must disagree with Zarella, in that the history of marriage dates back to a legal contract regarding an exchange of property. It is not based on biology. Reproduction is based on our DNA's organismic need to replicate and perpatuate. Sexual intercourse is based on anatomy, parts fitting into other parts.

I was so happy to hear of this decision. That makes three states that have realized that people should be allowed to be happy and have all the freedoms afforded the laws of the land. I know that the religious conservatives will claim that these justices have "legislated" from the bench in the name of "judicial activism." WRONG. All that happened is that the justices rendered a decision that they disagree with. That's LITERALLY THE ONLY THING conservatives mean when they use those phrases.

So tomorrow night, I'm toasting (a day late, but not a dollar short).


$3 on a candy bar and a Coke.

No comments: