Connecticut’s Supreme Court recently denied FIC’s motion to intervene in the Kerrigan lawsuit. Today’s Larry Cohen Rep-Am column on it is a must-read. It’s not available online, but here is an excerpt:

The institute, an advocacy group for the state’s merry little band of “social conservatives,” was attempting to help fend off a challenge from same-sex couples who want Connecticut to recognize not just “civil unions” but real, live, three-tiered wedding cake, same-sex marriages.

The institute asserted the negative impacts on children of homosexual “parents” was not being fully addressed by the case. In essence, the institute was seeking the ability to introduce evidence and muck around in a case the state wasn’t very enthusiastic about, lest it sound homophobic…

Although not terribly important as legal opinions go, [the Court’s denial of FIC’s motion] is an almost-classic example of the use of “standing” to no particular good end.

The civil-union challenge before the court has more to do with politics than law. Politicians sort of crafted a compromise and dumped it on the judges to tidy up. In essence, the “marriage” issue case before the court is a big, sloppy sociology lecture, and the institute would have contributed something to it that one suspects otherwise will be ignored.

Whether the Family Institute is your cup of tea; whether the research it cites on “gay” families would strike you as convincing, the halls of justice would not have come tumbling down if the institute had been allowed to intervene. Connecticut now unenthusiastically will fend off the homosexual-rights challenge to the marriage laws, without Family Institute true believers nipping at its heels.

Leave a Reply