High Court Grants Marriage Rights For Same-Sex Couples (Connecticut)

Hartford Courant ^ | 10/10/08 | MARK SPENCER, ALAINE GRIFFIN, DANIELA ALTIMARI and BILL LEUKHARDT

[truthandlife]

The state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry swept through the state with the force of a cultural tidal wave.

While lead plaintiff Beth Kerrigan and her partner -- soon to be wife -- embraced and sobbed after learning of the ruling, opponents vowed to pursue a long and complicated route to change the constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

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

In one of three separate dissents, Justice Peter Zarella said any decision on gay marriage should be left to the legislature, which approved civil unions in 2005 but has been reluctant since then to go further.

"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decisionfor the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, Richard Palmer and Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper, sitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused herself, formed the majority. Justices David M. Borden and Christine Vertefeuille joined Zarella in dissenting.

In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but would uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state's civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was "equitable and just."

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "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. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office represented the state in the case, said the decision, which takes effect Oct. 28, "must be respected" and cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was based on the state constitution.

"My office is reviewing the decision to determine whether any further action is necessary to conform our laws and procedures to the state Supreme Court's ruling," he said.

State Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, a Stamford Democrat and leading voice for gay rights in the legislature, praised the ruling, calling it "a bright day for Connecticut and all her citizens.''

He said the legislature must now take steps to clarify state law to comply with the court's ruling.

"The Supreme Court has admirably done its job and now we are required to do ours,'' he said. "And I predict that we will do it in a bipartisan fashion."

Opponents were obviously disappointed in the ruling. "The court has just usurped democracy in Connecticut and redefined marriage by judicial force,'' said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. "Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.''

Unsatisfied with the civil unions, 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.

Attorney Bennett Klein, arguing on behalf of the couples, told the court that civil unions were a "less prestigious, less advantageous institution."

The Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders law firm representing the couples pursued numerous legal arguments, contending that same-sex marriage was both a fundamental right.

Klein also argued that the couples are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

Assistant State's Attorney General Jane R. Rosenberg again argued that same-sex couples were being treated fairly by the state.

``No rights have been taken away from this group,'' she argued. ``They have been granted a license with all the rights and benefits of marriage. What's different is their license happens to say civil union and not marriage.

``Is the legislature constitutionally required to use the word `marriage' when referring to the packaging of benefits the legislature has given to same-sex couples? '' she asked. ``There is nothing in the words `civil union' that implies anything inferior.''

Rosenberg urged the high court to steer clear of what should be a public policy debate in the legislature, and not ``enshrine one policy choice as a matter of constitutional law,'' quoting a 1995 ruling of the court that welfare is not a fundamental right under the Connecticut Constitution.

The court's ruling today will likely be the final judicial judgment in the case because it it based on the state constitution, rather then the U.S. constitution.

But the often emotional, contentious debate over gay marriage is far from over.

Supporters rejoiced Friday, celebrating the end to at least the current legal battle.

Kerrigan and Mock sat hunkered down in front of their computer in their West Hartford home Friday morning, sifting through the voluminous Supreme Court decision in their case seeking the right to marry as a same-sex couple.

When they realized they had won on a 4-3 decision, they embraced and sobbed in each others' arms.

A moment later, Kerrigan and Mock looked at each other and asked, at the same time, "Will you marry me?"

"Yes, I will," they replied in unison.

Kerrigan looked around the room and asked "Is there a justice of the peace in the house?" Mock said, "So we're getting married!"

Opponents will now likely follow the path of those in other states where courts have endorsed same-sex marriage and seek a constitutional amendment banning it. California voters will decide in November if their constitution should ban gay marriage, after that state's Supreme court recent ruling to allow it.

In Connecticut, a question is on the November ballot on whether to hold a constitutional convention. Supporters want to change the constitution to allow "direct initiatives," which would potentially open the door for anti-gay rights groups to seek a ban on same-sex marriage.

A rally sponsored by the Family Institute of Connecticut to urge to court to reject the lawsuit and voters to approve the constitutional convention drew about 2,800 people to the state Capitol Sept. 28.

GLAD and Love Makes A Family have scheduled a rally at the Capitol at 5:30 p.m. today.

The Family Institute will hold a press conference at 3 p.m. in room 1C of the state legislative office building.

[truthandlife]

(COURTESY OF GLAD / October 10, 2008) Carol Conklin and Janet Peck of Colchester have been together for 32 years. They knew each other in high school and reconnected after college. Both women were born and raised in Connecticut and now own local businesses. Peck has a mental health counseling practice and Conklin is an electrician and home contractor. The women say they realized firsthand how important a marriage license is when Conklin was denied access to visit Peck in intensive care after she was recovering from surgery to remove tumors from her liver.

[truthandlife]

David and Busch

(COURTESY OF GLAD / October 10, 2008)

Stephen David and Jeffrey Busch moved to Busch's hometown of Wilton in 1997. There, they have built a family with the addition of their son Elijah in 2002. Davis runs the digital library program at Columbia University, where he has worked since 1988, and Busch is an administrative judge and part-time legal services lawyer in New York City. They have been together since 1989. They have a civil union.

[GatorGirl]

Ugh, you can take care of ALL the legal issues with proper paperwork—health care surrogate, power of attorney, wills, etc....

They do NOT need to get married!

[Comparative Advantage]

No surprise. The robed dictators have spoken in another state.

[marymaryquitecontrary]

Is this the part where we’re supposed to take cheap shots at these people’s appearance and make lewd jokes? Count me in!

[Jim Noble]

he women say they realized firsthand how important a marriage license is when Conklin was denied access to visit Peck in intensive care after she was recovering from surgery to remove tumors from her liver.

I bet that's a lie.

I've practiced HIV medicine since 1982. I've been involved in THOUSANDS of partner visitation situations in four states.

I've been asked by advocacy organizations to testify about visitation denial - I've never seen a case - not one - unless it involved a married man whose legal wife (next-of-kin) denied his boyfriend a visit.

But that's a special circumstance, one not easily resolved by legislation.

[Roamin53]

Which one is the husband?

[truthandlife]

We are losing this country to the liberal judges, the corrupt media and the politicians who have no accountability.

We live in an “age that anything goes.”

[Cicero]

Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, Richard Palmer and Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper, sitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused herself, formed the majority.

Does anyone know why Chase T. Rogers recused herself? This may have been the deciding factor in this 4-3 outcome. She was first appointed to the judiciary by Rowland, and promoted to her present position by Rell. Neither governor is a strong conservative, but both are Republicans.

Why did she recuse herself in favor of someone she probably knew would support gay marriage?

Her capsule bio is here:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/justiceRogers.html

[CounterCounterCulture]

(looks at pic)

What, have laws against incest been struck down too?

[Cicero]

I just googled Lubbie Harper, who I assumed from the name was another woman judge. He's not:

[Clintonfatigued]

It happened again.

I’m all for “live and let live,” but the militant gay activists are trying to ram their lifestyles down the throats of everyone else. This isn’t tolerance, it’s forced state sanction.

[exit82]

The love that dare not speak its name.

Nor show its picture.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[gidget7]

Of course they don't need marriage. But it isn't what this is all about. They want to destroy the concept of family and and all moral norms. Anyone who doesn't believe that, has blinders on.

The only thing we can do as a society is to make it “cost” the states who enact homosexual imitation marriage. There are many ways to do that.

If you own a business in a town that has a depravity pride parade, close your business that day, and if not, steer clear of the town for the day.

Do everything in your power to NOT spend in these states. Many ways to accomplish that. (Aside from perishables of course)

If you or someone you know is planning a wedding, first have them insist on Holy Matrimony, not civil marriage. If your church doesn't differentiate, find one that does. And get as much of the needs for the wedding OUTSIDE of the state. Window shop in state if need be, purchase it out of state. From a state that does not sanction homosexual imitation marriage. Even more ideally, get married elsewhere, at least it won't be meaningless. When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing!

It isn't what people would prefer, but start avoiding businesses that promote this atrocious fakery. But be prepared, the schools will if they aren't already. THAT is what this is really all about, getting to the children and as early as possible. Homeschool, if you can. If not, look for a charter school that doesn't follow state curriculum, or send your children to Christian or Catholic schools. Most will work you if you cannot afford it.

There are other things, but this is a start. It must cost these states, so that it makes it unprofitable to push this agenda. It will go nationwide if we do not stop it!

[Tanniker Smith]

Yet again by a one-vote margin.

[supercat]

Can anyone identify any society of non-trivial size (>10,000 people), at any time in human history, which has lasted for a non-trivial duration (>100 years) without recognizing the concept of a marriage, and requiring all marriages contain exactly one male principal?

I recall there have been a few (very few) tribal societies which allow for polyandry, but I don't think they meet the non-trivial size requirement.

The concept of a one-husband marriage is not a 'religion' thing, since it's universal throughout the most atheistic societies as well as the most religious. Indeed, I can think of few things that are more universal than single-husband marriage.

[Dilbert San Diego]

What’s galling to me about these homosexual marriage court cases is that the judges are making up the law as they go along. Family law talks about men and women, male and female. It does not talk about homosexuality at all. All men and all women are treated equally under traditional marriage laws. There is no basis for an equal treatment of laws lawsuit. Yet now three states have made up the laws to allow homosexual marriage by pretending that homosexual males are not males, and that homosexual females are not female.

Maybe there is a case to be made to give homosexual couples marriage rights. Maybe somehow it’s good for society to do that. But the same-sex marriage court cases are all about how it’s discriminatory not to have same-sex marriage, rather than discussing at all why it’s good for society to have homosexual marriage.

[Mr. Silverback]

Creepy how alike they look.