February 11, 2009 2:12 PM
- Text
Connecticut OKs Same-Sex Marriage
(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."
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.
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.
Latest Now in National
- Former Pa. DEP chief on contaminated water from gas drilling
- Whitney Houston's daughter taken in ambulance
- NJ man who shot off-duty officer must pay $5.9M
- Autopsy on Whitney Houston to begin Sunday
- Experts: Stanford's trial not won with 1 witness
- Drillers cut natural gas production as prices drop
- Man charged in plot to kill Utah governor
- Nature: Bobcats riding out the snow
- US seeks to mine social media to predict future
- RI player wins $336 million Powerball jackpot
- How the revolution became digitized
- Celebs mourn Whitney Houston at Clive Davis event
- The nation's weather
- Whitney Houston fans pay emotional tribute
- Hudson to honor Houston at Grammys
- Man to face Alabama trial in wife's diving death
- Whitney Houston's final performance
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
- Death of Whitney Houston leaves Grammys reeling
- 'The Artist' named best picture at British Academy Film Awards; 7 trophies in all
- Jean Dujardin wins best actor prize at British Academy Film Awards for 'The Artist'
- Meryl Streep wins best actress prize at British Academy Film Awards for 'The Iron Lady'
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
