Connecticut Goes Lavender

The Nutmeg Supremes drive another nail in traditional marriage's jurisprudential coffin:

The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, 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.”…

In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Governor M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “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. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…

The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on November to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”

Governor Rell is a pussy in addition to owning one.  There are some things on which you can go along to get along, and there are things of sufficient fundamental importance to the long term moral and social health of a society that you fight for them even if you know you're going to lose.  The divinely given and ordained institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman - not to mention saving democratic self-government from the tyranny of radical judicial oligarchy -  is one of the latter.

The grounds of this lavender lunacy - that homosexuals are a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence - is risible.  The idea that dinnermashers are "historical powerless and persecuted" is belied by the power they are wielding in bulldozing under one millenia-old societal institution after another.  That they are doing so undemocratically lends a doubly sinister mein to their values-imposing efforts.

Still, AP is sigh-inducingly correct in pointing out the slippery slope aspect of the "civil union" statutes across the country that set the stage for this sexually retrograde coup de tat.  Having gone that far down the road of moral compromise, it's less than practical to suddenly slam on the brakes on the brink of its terminus on moral grounds.  And having conceded that much power and influence to the forces of wickedness, the forces of virtue don't exactly have much room in which to maneuver for a push-back.

Just remember one thing: this is the sort of federal judiciary that a vote for John Sith McCain may or may deliver; but a vote for Barack Hoover Obama will guarantee it.