FIC Blog

Connecticut’s Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on FIC’s motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by groups seeking a judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” on our state. Here is an excerpt from the Courant’s coverage:

The Family Institute of Connecticut, staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, argued before the state Supreme Court Thursday that it should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut state laws that recognize only “traditional marriage” between a man and a woman.

Although the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is defending the validity of the state laws, FIC attorney Vincent J. McCarthy argued that Blumenthal will focus on the legal, and not necessarily the social and “foundational,” issues underlying the controversy.

“One of the most important issues in this case is children, and children have been left out of all the litigation to date,” McCarthy argued. He said his organization was prepared to present expert testimony and studies showing that the children of families that have no mother figure or father figure – as in homosexual and lesbian relationships respectively – “are disadvantaged at every level of growth and maturation.”

Chief Justice William J. Sullivan seemed to embrace McCarthy’s position at one point during an exchange with attorney Kenneth Bartschi, who argued for the state. Sullivan asked Bartschi why evidence of possible harm to children of same-sex couples wouldn’t be relevant to the case.

“Six years ago the legislature adopted the co-parent adoption bill, expressly permitting same-sex couples to adopt children together,” Bartschi said. “The legislature has already determined it is the quality of the family, and not its configuration, that serves the best interests of the child.”

Sullivan countered, “Just because the legislature says it doesn’t mean it’s so.”

The Courant’s brief excerpt reflects the tension that was present throughout most of the exchange between Chief Justice Sullivan and Kenneth Bartschi, a young attorney who snapped at the Chief Justice at one point, saying, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. We won’t concede the point.”

(Bartschi also neglected to mention that the adoption bill and the civil union law both describe marriage as between a man and a woman.)

Bartschi was arguing for one of the pro same-sex “marriage” groups and not, as the Courant reported, “for the state.” But the Courant’s error is understandable, considering how much the Assistant Attorney General–who is supposed to be defending Connecticut’s marriage laws in this case–seemed to be on the same page as the pro same-sex “marriage” plaintiffs.

The most troubling aspect of yesterday’s arguments was the assistant AG’s apparent agreement with the plaintiffs that the effect of same-sex “marriage” on children is not an issue in this case. By refusing to argue about what is in the best interest of children, the Attorney General’s office is essentially conceding the case.

This is why it is so important for the Family Institute of Connecticut to be included as a party in the Kerrigan case. As our attorney, Vincent McCarthy, argued yesterday, FIC will focus on the full range of arguments against a court-imposed legalization of same-sex “marriage” that the Attorney General, for whatever reason, refuses to engage in.

While it is impossible to predict how the Court will rule on our motion, most of the justices did seem to understand what is at stake in this case better than the AG’s office.

Whether our state government wants to admit it or not, children do best in a home with both a mom and a dad. FIC will continue to fight for a day when every child in Connecticut will have that opportunity. Whether in our courts, schools, legislature, media or churches, wherever the traditional family is threatened, we will take a stand.