She's good at least for an ambassadorship.

Furthermore, we are mindful that state ‘[c]onstitutional provisions must be interpreted within the context of the times. . . . ‘We must interpret the constitution in accordance with the demands of modern society or it will be in constant danger of becoming atrophied and, in fact, may even lose its original meaning.’ . . . [A] constitution is, in [former United States Supreme Court] Chief Justice John Marshall’s words, ‘intended to endure for ages to come . . . and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.’

...well, at least they're being up front about this being judicial activism. (Of the six factors they set out as criteria for interpreting the state constitution, only two of them are concerned with what the thing actually says and means—which properly should be the be-all and end-all—and those aren't the ones they use to settle this.)

The decision boils down to: there's discrimination against homosexuals (true); that has extremely harmful effects (true); state recognition of heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage is discriminatory (true); we, the judiciary, don't like that (well done); and therefore, even though there are no actual constitutional grounds for this, we're going to elbow the legislature aside and change the laws ourselves (so, so wrong).

All you people complaining about the right wing coming to power in the executive and legislative branches? This right here is why that happens. It's exactly the reverse of the way the system should work.

Those six factors, quoted on page 12 of the decision for anyone looking for them, are from a 1992 CT Supreme Court decision (Geisler). Those six factors have been guiding their decisions for 16 years, and they weren't revolutionary then. As for "what the thing actually says and means", that's precisely what those six factors are supposed to guide them in determining.

My reading of the decision is that it boils down to: there's discrimination against homosexuals (true); that has extremely harmful effects (true); state recognition of heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage is discriminatory (true); our state constitution has an equal protection clause (true); sexual orientation qualifies as at least a quasi-suspect class like gender (reasonably supported); discrimination in the marriage laws violates the equal protection clause in that case (also reasonably supported). Enforcing the equal protection clause isn't judicial activism; it's their job.

But okay, the six Geisler factors: (1) what does the constitution actually say; (2) what has this court held and said in the past; (3) what does federal precedent say; (4) what have other state courts decided; (5) what clues can we derive from historical context to determine the intended meaning of the constitutional provision; (6) "contemporary economic and sociological considerations, including relevant public policies," which appears to be a catch-all for "what do we want to legislate today?"

Of those, (1) and (5) deal with the bedrock constutionality; (2) deals with the court being internally consistent; (3) and (4) boil down to "what do the neighbors think?", and I couldn't find a way of being neutral about (6) above. The last four may all be fine things, but (1) and (5) properly trump them all.

Taking those in order, the court determines that (1) the text of the constitution doesn't really go one way or the other; (2) we haven't really addressed this as such before; (3) the federal courts have recently started to come around on the issue, so even though actual federal precedent is still clearly that gay marriage is not given the same legal status as straight marriage, we're going to steal a march and declare them to be on our side; (4) most state courts have ruled against what we're about to say, but we like the few exceptions much better; (5) looking at what the framers of the constitution meant to include obviously would have gone against them, so they conveniently skip it on page 57 to move on to (6) it's a bad, bad thing for gay marriage not to be given the same status as straight marriage, and we don't like it one bit.

...in other words, the entire decision deliberately ignores the question of what the constitution included when written, and leans entirely on minority viewpoints in other judiciaries and on factor 6: we consider this detrimental to society, and therefore we're gonna go ahead and legislate it. Which it then does.

But it's certainly an odd phrase no matter how we parse it.

Also saw a fascinating article:

http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-it-all-began.html

A Catholic priest, when told to preach in favor of Prop 8, comes out against it and is suspended. For somebody like me, a Catholic on the outs with Catholicism, it was fascinating reading.

Thanks also to Jay H, who pointed me to an article about Father Farrow this afternoon, even though I didn't see that article 'til after I saw this comment.