Conn. (Supreme) court legalizes gay marriage

[Newsjock]

Source: Washington Blade

The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

Connecticut is now poised to become the nation’s third state to allow same-sex marriage, joining California and Massachusetts.

"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 ruling says. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.

"The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."



Read more: http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=21641

[chiffon]

1. Connecticut State Supreme Courts Rules in favor of Same Sex Marriage

Source: Hartford Courant

Same-sex couples won the right to marry in Connecticut in a historic ruling by the Supreme Court today.

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.




Read more: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story

---

Wow, I am so proud of CT.

And please, accept our sincerest apologies for LIEberman

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. They did far more than just that: they declared "civil unions" to be inherently unconstitutional

Read the excerpt of the ruling I posted below.

[xxqqqzme]

11. "...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..."

DO NOT allow direct initiatives, good citizens of Connecticut. It wiil be abused, as it is here in California. Nov, '08 is the 3rd consecutive general election that a horrible parental notification initiative, amending the state constitution, is on our ballot (it allows criminal penalties for Drs who do not notify parents that their daughter is seeking a pregnancy termination). It has been defeated the first 2 times but, it appears, these RW zealots have unlimited funds. So, yet again it is on the ballot. Rong wingers did the same thing w/ vouchers in the 90s, which were also defeated.

I call 'Direct initiatives' lazy legislation. It lets your elected state representatives off the hook in favor of corporations and whacko fringe groups writing legislation.

[CTyankee]

42. Yes, I just voted today by absentee ballot and I voted "NO"

Our unions have been out educating the electorate. I just wish more could be done because unknowingly people could be fooled into voting for this thing.

It's interesting: RWingers who argue disdainfully that our founders despised "direct democracy" sing a different tune when you point out that direct initiatives are the closest thing to that despised direct democracy in our modern day. Heh, heh...just try it with them. They get all flustered!

[PageOneQ]

2. Connecticut overturns ban on gay marriages

Source: Associated Press

The Connecticut Supreme Court is deciding Friday whether same-sex couples in the state are legally entitled to marriage.

The court says it will rule on a lawsuit that challenges the state's marriage law as unconstitutional because it allegedly discriminates against gay couples.

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Connecticut_overturns_gay_m_1010.html

[FuzzyDicePHL]

3. CT Supreme Court documents here:

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/aro.htm#Supreme

[ronnykmarshall]

4. This is just wonderful!

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. From the ruling...

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.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. 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.

:woohoo:

And now we have something we can say to the "Get a civil union" crowd: A state supreme court has ruled that separate "civil unions" are inherently bigoted and unequal.

[customerserviceguy]

29. On the other hand

in the states where people are trying to get civil union or domestic partnership as a possible recognition of same-sex relationships, we now have two court rulings that used the presence of such laws as a reason for instituting equal marriage.

Makes it tough on folks in those states that have specifically outlawed equal marriage to get at least a bit of dignity for same gender relationships, doesn't it? And if you're pinning your hopes on the US Supreme Court invalidating all of those anti-equality amendments and such, then you're depending on the Bush court. The only resignations during President Obama's term(s) are going to be of Justices we already have on our side.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Jim Crow was never a step towards racial equality

This whole civil unions nonsense is nothing more than Jim Crow. We have our own version of Brown_v._Board_of_Education; deal with it.

[customerserviceguy]

38. I disagree

"Separate but equal" was recognized correctly by Brown vs. Board of Education to be fallacious, the language of Plessy vs. Ferguson (where the phrase came from) was unworkable, as it was obvious that states were putting far more money into white schools than into black ones. Segregation also kept the races suspicious of each other, and allowed prejudice to grow stronger.

But coupled relationships are inherently different. They each consist of two people, who make that relationship what it is, either aided or hindered by the state. If a state can achieve true equality of rights for a same-gender couple as for a heterosexual couple, then why foreclose that option in the places that have stained their constitutions with anti-marriage-equality laws? Would we effectively force every same-gender couple to move to the states where their relationships are fully recognized as marriages? That would result in the type of segregation that the "separate but equal" provisions of Plessy fostered by countenancing educational bigotry.

Its far better to have civil union/domestic partnership in the places that adopted a knee-jerk conservative reaction to the Massachusetts decision; when people in those places see that the sky is not falling for having a non-marital sanction for those relationships, then the separate status of civil union begins to become unnecessary to the people who enacted discriminatory marriage law. We can then use the same processes that put those discriminations into the law to remove them.

Hoping for the United States Supreme Court to wave a magic wand and dissolve something that a sizable majority of states have in their constitutions is simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future. At the time Loving vs. Virginia (which erased prohibition against interracial marriage) was decided, only a small handful of states had laws forbidding interracial marriage, and even a smaller number of jurisdictions actually enforced those laws, which were never elevated to the status of constitutional amendments, and most were passed shortly after the Civil War. It was legally relatively easy for the Court in 1967 to overturn laws that were a century old, that had pretty much disappeared most everywhere anyway.

Justices Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter are likely to be the only retirements in the next four years, they are already equality-minded, and would not be replaced with someone even more so. If a decision comes out of the Court on this any time within the next ten years, it will likely be against us, and form a precedent that will remain in the law for very many years. The distance in time between Plessy and Brown was a bit more than sixty years!

Should a same-gender couple in Ohio, Oregon, or Missouri have only the choice of moving to Massachusetts, Connecticut, or California, or just continuing on as an unrecognized relationship? Civil union and domestic partnership is a useful step along the way to equality, until the rest of the state's residents manage to catch up to 21st Century ways of thinking.

The backlash from the 2003 Massachusetts decision has sullied a very large portion of our nation in such an indelible way that will not be easily cleansed. Just because we cannot remove the whole of the ugliness does not mean that we should not try to clean up part of the mess.

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. This is not about "coupled relationships." This is about equal rights under the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage cannot be prohibited on the basis of race. The Loving decision was specifically mentioned by the Connecticut Supreme Court as one of the bases for their marriage decision.

I have faith that, eventually, same sex marriage bans will go the way of antimiscegenation laws. The Connecticut ruling is only the first step in that direction, the first step in the RIGHT direction.

How very sad for you that you think it is a step in the wrong direction. But that is YOUR problem, not mine.

[customerserviceguy]

41. I think the decision itself

was correct, and in the right direction. I just disagree with the reasoning used. Saying that having a civil union statute led to the decision to eliminate the ban against equal marriage means that we will see less civil union/domestic partnership statutes passed in places where state supreme courts are handcuffed by state constitutional amendments. The CT court had the freedom to rule as it did, because there was no such discriminatory amendment sullying the CT constitution. They could have based their decision on simple equality (as Massachusetts did), and let it go at that.

I have faith that marriage equality will become the law of the land, too, but it will have to come from a framework where we have both true equality in the progressive states, and a set of "separate but equals" in the states that cannot get their collective heads out of their butts. A future Supreme Court (without Scalia, I'm afraid) will be able to look at the general acceptance of same-sex relationships, and decide that the distinction between true marriage and civil union/domestic partnership is a purely artificial one, and just eliminate it.

Unfortunately, we are nowhere near the point where the country was with regard to marriage equality (based on race) when Loving vs. Virginia was decided. There is a greater public acceptance of same-gender marriage today than there was of interracial marriage then (Gallup found 90% disagreement nationwide with Loving) but we have a much stronger discriminatory legal infrastructure in place when it comes to same-sex marriage.

We have the same goal, we just see differences in how the United States is going to get there. I see civil union and domestic partnership as a steppingstone to the goal, you see them as blocking the way. There is no need for either of us to ascribe a 'problem' to the other in the differences to our approaches.

[cal04]

6. Conn. court overturns same-sex marriage ban

Court finds law discriminates by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467/

[closeupready]

7. Very excellent decision!

:)

[redqueen]

9. Wonderful news!

I wish the GOP would stop the politics of hate and division, so most of us can move forward and heal as a country. Let some fringe party appeal to the hate-spewing few.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Connecticut does the right thing!

Bless 'em!

[nichomachus]

12. My partner and I just came back from getting our marriage license

in California. We will be married Oct. 19. We were first in line when they opened the door. When we finished the application, there were five other same-sex couples waiting.

It's looking scarier and scarier here -- the polls aren't good on the anti-gay amendment on November's ballot. The Christians and other hate groups have poured tens of millions of dollars into hate-speech advertising and it looks like it's working.

My advice to CT folks is get married quickly if you're thinking about it. When the hate groups finish with us, they're coming after you.

The Mormons alone have donated mega-bucks to this hate campaign.

That should shut up all those people who said Mitt Romney's religion wasn't a vallid topic for discussion. The Mormons want a theocracy built on Mormon beliefs.

[Marrah_G]

24. I am so happy for you

You've had to wait to long for equal rights.

[Tektonik]

13. Thank you Connecticut!

:D

[Burma Jones]

14. This is obviously why the economy is tanking

You know that's what the no-necks are thinking......

Three Down, 47 to go........

[Politicalboi]

15. This is good news

I wish here in Ca they would not put it on the ballot. A small minority up against the masses is not a fair fight. If it had been that way in the 60's for the blacks there would still states that they couldn't enter. Gays are a much smaller minority and this should never be left in the hands of the masses.

[No Elephants]

16. Fantastic. Here is a link to the wiki on the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Connecticut

[Rockholm]

17. Woo Hoo!!!!

This makes THREE states. My home...Massachusetts, California and now Connecticut.

[LostinVA]

18. Great -- it'll cost us the election like NJ did two years ago

Oh -- wait -- yay! And, this will lead dircetly to NJ converting all CUs to marriages. Yay!

[Rockholm]

19. Front Page of MSNBC....Nothing Mentioned on CNN.com.

[David__77]

20. Thank god we're not seeing nervous hand-wringing.

This is just fine. If McCain wants to talk about gays and Ayers, he'll lose. I don't personally think he's too comfortable talking about either. This is a states' rights issue, no?

[David__77]

22. Also, let's not forget that McCain agrees it's a states' rights issue too!

He OPPOSED the "Federal Marriage Amendment." He has no room to complain about this.

[romantico]

23. OK

Dumb question here. I am a Connecticut resident but am confused. If gay marriage is NOW legal whats to vote for in November? S0unds like celebrating before its final, or am I missing something? Thanks!

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. The November ballot measure is a call for a state Constitutional Convention

The convention would consider whether or not to allow a direct initiative of the people, similar to what many western states have. If that change is made, then all anyone would need to write law (such as prohibiting same-sex marriage) would be enough signatures.

[brendan120678]

31. In November we'll be deciding...

on whether or not we want a Constitutional Convention. THis is a ballot measure that, by law, has to appear every 20 years. Those in favor of the Convention are hoping that the Constitution will be amended to allow ballot initiatives here in Connecticut. With ballot initiatives, it would be possible for a group to propose an anti-gay marriage bill and, if passed by the general electorate, that would become law. Or something to that effect.

[CatholicEdHead]

21. Good job CT

I also hope CA rejects Prop 8 and keeps the status quo.

[closeupready]

37. I predict, unfortunately, that they will NOT reject Prop 8.

However, the smarter East Coast states will continue to "fall" to the Gay Agenda. ;)

[CTyankee]

45. Uh, CT voter here. Just voted AB FOR BO and AGAINST the constitutional amendment!

So don't blame me, buddy!

I didn't "fall" any way except the way I considered and accepted.

You figure it out.

[WarhammerTwo]

25. Well, DUH!

Any court, when scrutinizing the constitution in a strictly secular manner (as it should be here in the US where we supposedly have a separation of church and state) cannot possibly justify any other verdict BUT to allow gay marriage. All people are equal under our constitution, black or white, gay or straight. If you bestow certain rights or benefits upon a man and woman in a civil contract recognized by the state, you must provide those same benefits to any two people (of consenting age and functioning mental faculties) who wish to enter into the same civil contract. Folks who buck this buck the inevitable. Have we not learned anything from the Civil Rights Movement? I mean, really. If you want to get picky, the state only recognizes marriage because of various legal implications such as property rights and taxation. The state doesn't care if you get hitched by a priest, rabbi, minister or judge. As long as it conforms to the legalities established by the state. If that's the case, the government should not recognize ANY marriage but rather declare us ALL as civil unions. Remove and religious context from the subject all together. And if a couple can find a church to sanctify the union, it can then be blessed a marriage and recognized as such in the family and religious hierarchy of those how have joined together in such a union. But really, why make it that friggin' complicated? Why raise all this hullabaloo over semantics? Just let them get married, let them get on with their lives (which most likely will have NO IMPACT) on your life or marriage) and let us start to mind our own business.

Frankly, even from a religious stand point, I'm thrilled about this. I attend a United Church of Christ (another reason I like Obama) that is currently working on becoming an Open & Affirming congregation. My wife's on the committee to make it a reality and we're getting great positive feedback from a majority of the church. As such, hearing this out of Conn. is simply fantastic. See? Not all us Christians are crazy, right-wing, hate-mongering yahoos that believe this country was founded on the bedrock of strong Christian values. Quite a few of us are quite rational.

Later gators.

[2Design]

26. this is how the black and whites eventually got to marry across

the country - one state at a time, starting with the blue states, eventually all those same red states as now had to allow it and that has been there worry - this too shall spread and that is why they want hate mongers in the wh

this is very good news for the gay people of connecticut, the country and the world - and if there is a God, he/she would be pleased to see some parts of the world becoming more tolerant of his/her gifts to the world. Gay people are a gift to the world.

[customerserviceguy]

32. One big difference

the marriage laws that outlawed interracial marriage were 1) Not often enforced, and 2) Not in the constitutions of various states, and 3) Not in a large majority of states.

Unfortunately, it's not that way with equal marriage. We will have about a dozen to fifteen states that recognize the dignity and equality of same gender relationships as marriage, and the rest will have absolute prohibitions against it, including shutting the door on domestic partnerships or civil unions. At some point, the US Supreme Court will get involved, and even if President Obama makes some replacements, they're not going to be of Justices that are against our side.

We're going to have a situation where equality is recognized by a quarter to a third of the US, and discrimination is enshrined in the rest.

[2Design]

47. our constitutions should eventually rule as it did then - yes the hurdles

might be higher but we now have three states that have passed it - and the hate mongers christians for discrimination are spending a lot of money instead of helping people around the world with their finances - definitely not what jesus would do - they make me sick - they are so hateful

[debbierlus]

27. Oh, that is WONDERFUL! Yeah!

Up above you in MA, we have shown the world that Gay Marriage is a beautiful and healthy thing.

Not just for the married people, but for all gay couples, it is a affirming statement. Legalizing gay marriage, in essence, has normalized for many in our state, the issue of homosexuality. It is profound.

[Critters2]

28. Woo-hoo!

;bounce:

[Sisaruus]

33. Love Makes a Family

A great big THANK YOU and CONGRATULATIONS to Anne Stanback and the great people at Love Makes a Family (www.lmfct.org). I hope she celebrates with a big bottle of champagne after this evening's rally (5:30pm in Hartford, north steps of the Capitol).

[Fearless]

34. OH FUCK!

I only hope it is upheld (ie no constitutional amendments)...

:yourock:

:kick:

[varun]

36. Wow

I am proud to be a Connecticut resident!

BTW, Connecticut passed the Civil Union law through its legislature, not through the courts. Gov. Jodie Rell (Republican) signed the law.

I dont think there is much opposition to Gay marriage in Connecticut.

[Unvanguard]

40. Love won out. For real this time.

:)

[greeneyedboy]

43. marriage ban in CA has a narrow lead in the polls - HELP!

The Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus have been spending millions of dollars on ads promoting a marriage ban amendment to California's constitution--and the ads have had an effect: Proposition 8 is now leading in the polls.

The Democratic landslide will be so much sweeter if I get to keep my very newly received marriage license.

Please, get ten friends to join you in donating $25 to defeat Prop 8. I just donated $100 and am phonebanking as much as I can in the next three weeks. We can't defeat this vicious measure without ads, and ads cost money.


Here's the link for donating or volunteering (phonebank offices are open 12 hours a day all over California):
www.noonprop8.com/home.



Donations will make a huge difference in this election, and this election will have lasting effect nationwide.


Please donate now to stop the marriage ban in California.



Thanks.

[Alexander]

44. I'm proud to be from such a progressive state.

Now if only my current state could get its act together...

[harmonicon]

46. 3 down, 47 to go

:)