On Wednesday, a Connecticut judge ruled that the state’s denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution, because Connecticut’s civil unions law already provides all the rights and protections of marriage. The decision is here (it’s a PDF of a fax, but it’s the only copy I could find).

The plaintiffs made five arguments why civil unions are not good enough under the state constitution:

(1) marriage is a fundamental right,
(2) civil unions are a lesser status than marriage,
(3) civil unions are a form of “separate-but-equal” segregation,
(4) the term “civil union” lacks recognition and acceptance in common parlance, and
(5) civil unions are not recognized by other states.

Regarding these arguments, the judge found that

(1) it is the set of legal rights, not the traditional title of “marriage,” that is important, and “[n]ostalgia for past traditions ought not be an impediment to the current acknowledgment of basic civil rights”;

(2) there is nothing inherently insulting about the term “civil unions,” the term is “properly descriptive of the type of legal institution to which it applies,” and “offensiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder”;

(3) the “separate-but-equal” cases do not apply, because, unlike here, the separation in those cases was tangible and observable, and the “rhetorical separation of marriage vs. civil union” is not enough to invoke an equal protection or due process analysis;

(4) the fact that people may be ignorant of the civil-union law does not amount to a constitutional harm, and the plaintiffs would have to explain their status to people whether they were in a same-sex civil union or a same-sex marriage;

(5) while it’s true that other states don’t recognize civil unions, they don’t recognize same-sex marriage, either, and anyway, that’s the fault of those states, not the fault of Connecticut.

The parties are going to appeal.