Four people have not just extended a supposed
civil right to a particular class of individuals, but have chosen
to redefine the institution of marriage. The Connecticut Supreme
Court has taken upon itself to make a determination that other
courts throughout our nation have felt should be made through
the political process.
Courts in other states, with the exception of
Massachusetts and California, have ruled that marriage is a
special institution in our society, not a civil right, and chose
not to redefine it. Those courts felt that altering this historical
and special institution was a legislative matter, and should
be left to elected officials and the people they represent.
It appears our State Supreme Court has forgotten
that courts should interpret laws and legislatures should make
laws. In its decision today, the Connecticut Supreme Court
stated again their philosophy that "as we engage over time in
the interpretation of our State Constitution, we must consider
the changing needs and expectations of the citizens of our State."
Determining the "contemporary" views of the public is the responsibility
of the legislature, not the judiciary.
In his dissent, Justice Peter Zarella makes the
important and obvious point that "the majority fails, during
the entire course of …. (this) … opinion, even to identify,
much less to discuss, the actual purpose of the marriage
laws, even though this is the first, critical step in any equal
protection analysis." The majority utterly failed to consider
the relationship between the laws of marriage and family. As
Justice Zarella maintains, "The ancient definition of marriage
as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology,
not bigotry."
The Supreme Court of Connecticut has chosen to
ignore the wisdom of our elected officials, the will of the
people, and historical social and religious traditions spanning
thousands of years by imposing a social experiment upon the
people of our state.
In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly, while
enacting civil union legislation to expand certain rights to
same-sex couples, recognized the social importance and uniqueness
of traditional marriage through their action of specifically
defining marriage in statute as a relationship between one man
and one woman. Our elected officials recognized that the
people of Connecticut did not want the institution of marriage
redefined in our state.This position is also reflected in federal
law, which defines marriage as being between one man and one
woman.
This decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court
also raises a very real concern about the infringement on religious
liberty and freedom of speech with the judicial imposition of
same-sex marriage. The real battle in this court case was
not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of
legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing
social acceptance of a particular lifestyle; a lifestyle many
people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept.
This ruling creates an inevitable conflict between
people of faith, the natural law and the authority of the State.
Therefore, we will be calling on the Catholic
people of our state to vote "Yes" for a Constitutional Convention
and the right of referendum on Election Day.
-30-
