The Connecticut majority’s opinion is boring in its extraordinariness.
Court overturns marriage as a concept on grounds that something called “sexual orientation” (details of definition of category to be worked out by future courts but has something to do with raising to constitutionally protected status a class of persons defined by their sexual desire — and so unlike race or gender carries with it a dual obligation to respect both the person and the sexual acts of the person) is something called a “quasi-suspect” class. (Excuse the amateur here, but isn’t that “quasi” a dead giveaway that something not-very-judicial is taking place?)
Let’s see on the one hand we have the consensus of the human race over thousands of years and hundreds of societies that there is something distinctive and unique about unions of husband and wife — on the other hand we have the wisdom of Harvard Law school, invented five minutes ago, that anyone who sees a difference is either insane or full of seething malice towards gay people.
The first view implies a certain modest restraint on the part of judges about their wisdom — the second view aggrandizes the role of judges (and Harvard!) and legal institutions of this country as the main source of moral wisdom.
Well when you put it that way, the extraordinary thing — given fallen human nature — is that three judges voted “no.” (And that court majorities in New York, Washington, and Maryland declined to join the judicially self-congratulatory chorus of gay marriage yes votes).