Actually, The Fundamental Orders were originally a 7 page sermon (5 of which survive) by Thomas Hooker himself on Pentacost Sunday, 1638; but not codified until the next year.

Just a minor point.

http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm

Anyway, it certainly was interesting. Justice Borden’s questions about the civil union law and its relationship to any decision by the Court were certainly instructive.

My best guess is that they deny the appeal and leave it up to the legislature. I have been wrong, however, on many occasions.

This new constitution was the 1638 Fundamental Orders. Our civil marriage law looks back to these Fundamental Orders as they provided secular civil control of marriage to our government, not the church. Only later did Connecticut “deputize” clergy to allow them to act as agents of the state in officiating at marriage ceremonies. This history is recounted in the 1905 Connecticut case of Gould v. Gould.

At the top of this mural there appears to be shining light. I wondered whether the light from the mural might enter the minds of the justices as they wrestled with the marriage equality issue.

I have attended numerous hearings at the Legislative Office Building and the New Haven Superior Court arguments in the Kerrigan case. I could recognize a large majority of court watchers today as either media or supporters of marriage equality.

I suspect that the court will deliver both a majority decision and a dissenting minority decision. That being the case, my educated estimate is that the decision will not arrive until sometime in 2008.

Borden has been on camera quite a bit.

…so the “openness” crisis in ct was over camera angles?

…Does anyone have a feel on which justices will vote which way?

It’s the first case ever where CTN is allowed to use multiple cameras and are able to zoom in close. It’s much better to watch than that stationary camera all of the way at the back of the room where you couldn’t even tell who was speaking.