Did CT’s AG throw the “gay marriage” case?

A column in this morning’s Hartford Courant would seem to suggest as much. It all centers on which argument the state decided to put forward in defense of marriage as “between a man and woman”. Actually it centers on which argument the state didn’t make. And the question is why?

Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute writes:

As Justice Peter Zarella notes in dissenting opinion, this is “the only argument” that has ever won in such cases. The court dismissed our motion, saying that it could consider the same argument via an amicus brief and that “if the attorney general failed to argue that there was a rational basis for traditional marriage, he would not be adequately representing the state’s interest.”

He didn’t. The attorney general’s office never made that argument and the court concluded that it therefore need not consider it. Given the court’s reasons for dismissing our motion, its refusal to consider the rational basis for traditional marriage was, as Zarella wrote, “unseemly, to say the least.”

Wolfgang is not the only one to make the argument … (via Carpet City Chronicle). Attorney Karen Lee Torre in the Connecticut Law Journal was the first to pose the question.

Nevertheless, when Kerrigan returned to the Supreme Court, Blumenthal’s surrogate expressly disavowed the very governmental interests that the FIC wished to advance and handed the four judges in the majority what they needed to rationalize a constitutional right to gay marriage. The argument Blumenthal refused to advance – the procreation argument — was “the only argument,” Justice Zarella noted, “that other courts have found to be persuasive in determining that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is not unconstitutional.”

Time for some answers. Blumenthal is charged with representing the State of Connecticut … not his political interests. Disappointing at best.

Big H/T here to Carpet City Chronicle. This blog is a storehouse of info … please click and visit and let em know we read.