10/10/2008
Connecticut Rules Prohibition of Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court of Connecticut today ruled that the state's same-sex civil union laws are discriminatory and that gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry in that state:
"Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory. Eight same-sex couples had brought the case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, after they were denied marriage licenses in 2004 by the Madison town clerk, who was following instructions issued by the state attorney general's office. The state, arguing that civil unions already provide all the rights and protections of marriage, prevailed in a Superior Court ruling in July 2006. The couples appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which heard three hours of arguments on the case in May 2007."
Here's some background on the arguments from May 2007.
From the opinion (PDF):
"The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state’s statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm..."
More of the opinion, AFTER THE JUMP...
Opinion, continued
"...We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment."
Posted 11:38 AM EST by Andy Towle in Connecticut, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
DBZEAG, It's my understanding that the ruling is based on the Connecticut Constitution and thus will not affect other states with civil unions unless their constitutions are similar - and then only charging GLBT couples there to file similar suits.
Posted by: Dan B | Oct 10, 2008 1:07:46 PM
It would be nice if Obama & Schwarzenegger cut brief spots saying they are (or would be) voting NO on Prop 8 in California. Do they even have to give a reason? They've both announced their opposition.
Posted by: Glenn I | Oct 10, 2008 1:18:06 PM
Dan B, that's what I mean. Maybe it will inspire action in those other states much quicker.
Posted by: dbzeag | Oct 10, 2008 1:20:54 PM
This is great news! Congrats to the folks in CT! The men and women in the state who worked and fought for this win deserve high praise.
This is why getting a Dem in the White House is crucial. If we can get more liberal judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, we can get a decision that would strike down any state-level bans on gay marriage or civil unions.
Loving v. Virginia was the U.S. Supreme Court case that destroyed prohibition of interracial marriage. If conservatives control the U.S. Supreme Court, we'll never get a pro-gay marriage decision. Look at the writings of Scalia, Thomas, and other ultra-conservatives on the Court when it comes to gay rights. They all voted against striking down the sodomy laws.
Posted by: noah | Oct 10, 2008 1:28:44 PM
While I'm happy for CT, I'm afraid that this will incite the same backlash that we saw in 2004, where many, many states passed laws outlawing SSM.
In 3 weeks, many states, especially CA and FL, will vote on the same issue. Conservatives now have a built-in, ready-made ad to run for this, I'm sure.
Again, glad it happened - but the timing SUCKS!!!
Posted by: steve | Oct 10, 2008 1:29:06 PM
The other states will fold in due time. Any validating court case is welcome, regardless of timing.
Posted by: jeffy | Oct 10, 2008 1:37:39 PM
Good for CT! Bad for CA!
DOMA was already upheld by SCOTUS.
Posted by: anon | Oct 10, 2008 2:12:48 PM
People have little care for who's marrying who when they're sweating whether or not they can even put food on the table. This ruling will have little effect on the election.
Go CT!
Posted by: ichabod | Oct 10, 2008 2:32:21 PM
"DOMA was already upheld by SCOTUS."
Umm, when? There have been a couple of lower court challenges, but nothing has made it to SCOTUS. Did I miss a case?
Posted by: MAJeff | Oct 10, 2008 3:43:12 PM
They declined to review.
Posted by: anon | Oct 10, 2008 6:07:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality
Posted by: anon | Oct 10, 2008 6:08:34 PM
" Kudos Connecticut! Civillywedd.com wishes the best to all LGBT's who plan to marry. "
Posted by: Michael | Oct 11, 2008 12:00:25 PM
"Does Connecticut have any laws on the books that restrict out of state gay couples from getting Married?"
Tim, I believe you are referring to the Massachusetts state law which was recently appealed which restricted out-of-state marriages of couples whose union would not be recognized in their home state. While that law has been used more recently to prevent same-sex marriages, it was actually drafted over 90 years ago to prevent interracial marriage. The push for its repeal was spearheaded by both gay and African American politicians, as it was an ugly tribute to both racism and sexual identity discrimination.
I can't seem to find the article I read about the Massachusetts law, but I don't recall that Connecticut ever had a similar law. Check out the CT Attorney General's website for the particulars of their laws (www.ct.gov/ag/) -- but in 2004, their AG wrote about the status CT residents who were married in MA in a letter to then Governor Romney:
"Under Connecticut law, however, whether a marriage is “void” is a different question from whether the marriage is “permitted” or “authorized.” Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 348-49 (1980) (“[i]n the absence of express language in the governing statute declaring a marriage void for failure to observe a statutory requirement, this court has held in an unbroken line of cases... that such a marriage, though imperfect, is dissoluble rather than void.”). As stated in our opinion, same sex marriages are not authorized in Connecticut. But that fact does not make them automatically void, because our state has no statute declaring same sex marriages void so. The answer to your question therefore depends on the legal effect and meaning of a provision of your own statute, particularly the term “void,” as interpreted by Massachusetts courts and the Massachusetts Attorney General."
Posted by: FOOCHY | Oct 13, 2008 2:48:46 PM