Oct. 14, 2008
There is a lot of things in the Connecticut Supreme Court same-sex "marriage" case to either laugh or cry about. There is one section in the majority decision where the four judges who invented the same-sex "marriage" right in the state of Connecticut make the argument that because homosexuals are underrepresented in the political, business and academic world that they are being discriminated against.
"Insofar as gay persons play a role in the political process, it is apparent that their numbers reflect their status as a small and insular minority. It recently has been noted that, of the more than one-half million people who hold a political office at the local, state and national level, only about 300 are openly gay persons. Andersen v. King County, supra, 158 Wash. 2d 105 (Bridge, J., concurring in dissent); see also R. La Corte, ''State Legislature Has Second-Largest Gay Caucus in U.S.'' (January 24, 2008) (putting figure at about 400 openly gay persons), available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004140976_webgaycaucus23.html?syn. No openly gay person ever has been appointed to a United States Cabinet position or to any federal appeals court, or served in the United States Senate, and only two currently serve in the United States House of Representatives. See ''Current Members of the United States Congress,'' available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators. Gay persons also lack representation in the highest levels of business, industry and academia. For example, no openly gay person heads a Fortune 500 company; G. Shister, ''Gay Chief Executives Come Out Winners'' (January 28, 2008), available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080129030005/http:/www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080128_Gay_chief_executives_come_out_winners.html; and it has been estimated that there are only fourteen openly gay college and university presidents or chancellors; see ''An Openly Gay Chancellor Heads to Madison, Wis.,'' Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog (May 29, 2008), available at http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=4574; a number that represents only one half of 1 percent of such positions nationwide."
I am troubled that a court document uses Wikipedia as a credible source (talk about some lazy law clerks!). According to this article a search of all federal and all state court decisions ever made revealed that 247 have cited Wikipedia, despite Wikipedia telling users not to cite them as a reliable source.
What is of deeper concern is the logic in the judges' paragraph. Do the judges actually believe that homosexuals are a put upon class in society? A Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.
As for fortune 500 companies, The Human Rights Campaign themselves cite that of the top ten companies in the Fortune 500 nine (90 percent) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, five (50 percent) prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and eight (80 percent) provide partner health benefits. The numbers they cite for the rest of the 500 are similar.
Also does the judge honestly believe that college campuses are hostile to the homosexual agenda? What colleges are they visiting? And why cite the number of homosexuals in these fields anyway. Why not also in the entertainment/news industry? According to Peter Sprigg in his InFocus paper, "Homosexual Groups Back Off From '10 Percent' Myth," about 1.4 million Americans identify themselves as homosexual. In comparison at least 125 million Americans identify themselves as "born-again" or "evangelical." Between homosexuals and Evangelicals which selected group is more prevalent in Hollywood? Homosexuals would be a good guess. Which group is better portrayed unfairly? Evangelicals by far.
There is much wrong with the majority opinion from the Connecticut Supreme Court, its inexplicable use of random statistics about supposed unfilled quotas to justify its unjustifiable decision is just one of them.