Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case


Eight same-sex couples who were in Connecticut Supreme Court yesterday to argue that civil unions and their separate-but-equal status do not measure up to marriage walked away from the hearings “hopeful” about what might come of them, according to the Hartford Courant.

PlaintiffsAttorney Bennett Klein, representing the eight same-sex couples, faced off against State attorney Jane Rosenberg, whose arguments centered primarily around semantics, according to Reuters.

Said Rosenberg: “We’re talking about a word here. It was rational for the legislature to preserve the opposite sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history and which continues to represent the common understanding of marriage in most other countries and states in our union.”

According to the Hartford Courant, “Rosenberg argued that same-gender couples are far from politically powerless, and have made ‘significant advances’ in recent years, noting the passage in Connecticut two years ago of the first civil union law in the country that was not compelled by a court order. She said she wouldn’t be surprised if sexual orientation was soon grafted onto the constitution’s equal protection provisions. ‘Is that your argument – give them more time and they’ll do better?’ Justice Richard N. Palmer queried. ‘For many years, gays and lesbians have been subjected to significant discrimination.’ Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr. drew laughter when he interjected, ‘If they were doing better, they would have passed that bill across the street.'”

Norcott was referring to a bill that would make gay marriage legal in the state which in April passed the Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee by a surprise vote of 27-15. The bill has headed to Connecticut’s house but a vote won’t be made on it this session.

Argued Klein for the plaintiffs: “Here the lesbian and gay couples have been relegated to a less prestigious, less advantageous, institution…Depriving same-sex couples of the word marriage is a way of depriving them of equality as couples and families. Marriage is not just a bundle of legal rights. It is a status that the state confers on people, and it’s a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals.”

According to attorneys, the Connecticut justices may issue their decision by November.

Connecticut’s top court hears gay marriage case [reuters]
Arguing Over A Word [hartford courant]


  1. Stephen says

    Bill Richardson (in a recent Advocate interview) stated his support for civil unions versus gay marriage. He is not the only presidential candidate to do so.
    It’d be interesting to hear why he and others continuously see the relationships (same sex union vs heterosexual marriage) in that perspective.
    Marriage as it would pertain to same sex couples would dilute the significance that many male/female couples have by making their vows in the church. Perhaps that’s it?

  2. Zeke says

    No Stephen it’s YOU who needs to explain how same sex marriage would dilute the significance of opposite sex marriage.

    No one has done that. You rail on ad nauseam with etherial concepts but you have YET to offer any REAL evidence from actual cases in Canada, Massachusetts, or anywhere else that has gay marriage, to back up your baseless claims.

    Divorce rates have dropped in Belgium and in the Netherlands since the introduction of marriage equality, reversing a twenty plus year trend. THAT is a FACT that can be proven with statistical evidence. Do you understand the concept of arguing based on evidence and fact or do you just prefer to use the tactics of FOF and the AFA because it’s easier and takes less research and work?

    I’ve noticed that you’ve changed tactics a bit but you’re still just as full of sh*t.

    Are you now claiming that the State should be in the business of regulating church rites?


    You aren’t legally married by taking vows in a church and you can be legally married without ever having stepped into a church. Atheists marry every day.

    Jesus Christ Stephen, I’m sick of beating this dead horse with you.

  3. Stephen says

    Laws can be written and signed to afford same sex long term couples EVERY benefit that married couples currently possess.
    Same sex couples DO differ from heterosexual couples no matter how you want to slice the pie.
    BUT, providing the every benefit to these couples and calling it a civil union or a domestic partnership is just not enough they say.
    It is arrogance, in my opinion, to continue to press for ‘gay marriage’ when what these couples ultimately want are the benefits and rights inherent with marriage.

Leave A Reply