HARTFORD, Conn., Oct. 10, 2008
Connecticut OKs Same-Sex Marriage
State Supreme Court Rules Gays Have Right To Marry, Becoming 3rd State To Legalize Such Unions
-
(AP Photo)
-
Interactive Same-Sex Marriage Debate State-by-state coverage, opinions, history, photos and a look at the amendment process.
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."
Quote
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.The segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.
From the court's majority opinionThey 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.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 19
- next
See all 374 CommentsPeople 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.
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.
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
...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.
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
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????
MAN!,, I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article.
If more people worried more about themselves, and less to what other people are doing, this world just might be a better place.
I guess I''m living in a fantasy world to think that way though.
Countries like Iran govern themselves religiously (The Islamic State of Iran, the Jewish State of Israel, the Islamic State of Pakistan, etc - 7 or 8 in the world). The United States is still a country governed by a Constitution, and I am concerned about movements to inject religion into the US government. The people who think that would be a good thing would certainly would think differently if the religion being injected was one different than their own.
If we, as a constitutional nation, aspire to treat all people equally then we have to treat all people equally.
Posted by jankebenz at 01:57 AM"
They don''t have anything to say about it
Posted by jankebenz at 01:44 AM : Oct 11, 2008"
"the one who gave his life for you, me and everyone else."
He didn''t give his life for me because I don''t believe in your religous figures.
I know most christians mean well, but some come across as pushy, and if you don''t believe in their god your going to hell, and they push harder by saying they''ll pray for you. If non christians want christians help they''ll ask for it.
I live in the Texas bible belt, sometimes I hate going to town because people are hawking christianity like it''s a new car, over and over again. I wear a medicine bag that contains my spiritual items, I''ve had southern baptist come up to me and grab it,saying what is this and yank it off of my neck. My Creator gives me the strength to not knock the sh-t out of them. I had one rip it off and throw it in the trash.
To bring this back full circle of what this article is about. To deny homosexual folks Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness violates their rights given to them by our founding fathers. Christians don''''t have to like it and they don''''t have to look, but they don''''t have a right to restrict it because it doesn''''t agree with their religion.
Posted by dbaecht at 01:20 AM : Oct 11, 2008
What did your ancestors and spirits have to say on the matter? Do you deny them as well?
Why are you folks so intent on changeing my views on your religion, do you get extra points for converting someone. All you are doing is proving my idea that christians are pushy.
--Posted by dbaecht at 12:44 AM : Oct 11, 2008
Don''t get me wrong, I have a high respect for American natives and their culture. The god of your ancestors (spirit in the sky) also commanded honor,respect,obedience and worship. I''m glad you believe in the creator but I''m sorry you feel christians are pushy, thats not the intent. We want to share the message of truth, of freedom ,and salvation thru Jesus,the son of God, the one who gave his life for you, me and everyone else. Its not a matter of push and shove, but it is an invitation.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 19
- next
See all 374 Comments