Connecticut OKs Same-Sex Marriage

State Supreme Court Rules Gays Have Right To Marry, Becoming 3rd State To Legalize Such Unions

(CBS/AP)  Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success."

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

The majority decision, while accepting that the state's civil union law did accord homosexual couples many of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (such as shared property), the fact that the state constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman meant that same-sex couples were constitutionally discriminated against.

"Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means "equal," the majority opinion read. "The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not."

While lauding the legislature for extending legal rights to those joined in a civil union, the majority wrote that "the very existence of the classification [for same-sex couples] gives credence to the perception that separate treatment is warranted for the same illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination in the first place."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice David Borden wrote, "The state of social flux in this entire realm is simply too new and too untested for four members of this court to declare as an established social fact that civil unions are of lesser status than marriage in our state."

Borden questioned whether gay couples who choose to announce their civil unions in the pages of The New York Times view their civil union as a sign of "second-class citizenship."

"In my view, the majority’s decision to grant quasi-suspect class status to sexual orientation is contrary to a sound and prudent interpretation of constitutional standards regarding equal protection of the laws because it unduly minimizes the unique and extraordinary political power of gay persons in this state, both generally speaking, and particularly in regard to the question of whether gay marriage should be recognized in this state."

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."

The case was Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health.

[smontoya04]

I pity those who have nothing better to do than worry/complain/ about what I do in my personal life...talk about a meaningless and empty way to live.

[bamboozled99]

It''s about time the U.S. started catching up with the rest of the world in the area of social justice, particularly considering it''s billed as a "free" country.

People may not agree with the beliefs of Sarah Palin''s church, but they certainly have to be tolerant of it, thanks to the constitution.

There''s no reason why the State should treat personal relationships any differently than personal religion. If you don''t agree with homosexuality, don''t practice it.

[bamboozled99]

It''s about time the U.S. started catching up with the rest of the world in the area of social justice, particularly considering it''s billed as a "free" country.

People may not agree with the beliefs of Sarah Palin''s church, but they certainly have to be tolerant of it, thanks to the constitution.

There''s no reason why the State should treat personal relationships any differently than personal religion. If you don''t agree with homosexuality, don''t practice it.

[honestabe8]

Taught a lesson? About what, tolerance?

[differnet]

Writing from Massachusetts here. Gee, we have Gay Marriage and it has done nothing to change the statistics here. We have the lowest teen pregnancy rate, the lowest divorce rate, the lowest high school drop out rate, the lowest drunk driving rate and highest educational rates in the country. Of course, we had those before Gay Marriage too.

[honestabe8]

It is this same *** stuff that is responsible a great deal for the current low moral standing of America in the world.For instance,Africa is almost totally against it.

Posted by ozonmojo at 08:10 AM : Oct 11, 2008

Are these the same Africans who think raping a virgin will get rid of their AIDS? If so, I think you need to find a different moral barometer

[charlieot]

Followup to AmJoe...
...opposition to the judges'' collective interpretation of the law, the courts are obligated to rule "against the will of the people." Period. End of Sentence.

[charlieot]

AmJoe...
This is precisely the reason we have the system we have in the US. Courts are charged with ruling without regard to the "will of the people" and without regard to election results. Courts are charged with ruling based on the eachjudge''s interpretation of the legality of applicable law based on legal precedent, the applicable constitution and other ostensibly objecive bases. Popular opinion has no place (from a legal perspective) in court decisions. If the will of the people is in opposition to

[charlieot]

It is this same *** stuff that is responsible a great deal for the current low moral standing of America in the world.For instance,Africa is almost totally against it.
Posted by ozonmojo at 08:10 AM : Oct 11, 2008

You''re not seriously holding the nations of Africa as paragons of virtue are you????

[ozonmojo]

It is this same *** stuff that is responsible a great deal for the current low moral standing of America in the world.For instance,Africa is almost totally against it.