CT Supreme Court says gay couples have the right to marry

[bigscott]

just posted on MSNBC:bounce:

[xchrom]

1. recommend -- joyfully recommend!

:applause:

[Chovexani]

2. Let freedom ring...

K&R! :party:

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Excellent!!

[GDAEx2]

4. SWEET!

Cheers to you, Sisters and Brothers :toast:

[terrya]

5. Great News!!! Fantastic!!

Congratulations to the gay and lesbian folks in Connecticut! :bounce:

[Kajsa]

6. Fantastic!

Now, let's keep it legal in California.

NO ON 8- STOP THE HATE!

Thanks for this great news, Bigscott!

:) :toast:

[unpossibles]

7. K&R for Equal Rights! YAY! nt

[FuzzyDicePHL]

8. Documents here

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

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

9. No sh*t !

That's great news !

[unblock]

10. yay! this almost makes up for lieberman.

almost.

[smoogatz]

11. K&R for equal rights, fairness AND basic human decency, not to mention

common sense.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

12. CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION
We recognize, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, supra,
440 Mass. 309, that ‘‘our decision marks a change in
the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deepseated
religious, moral, and ethical convictions that
marriage should be limited to the union of one man and
one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral.
Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical
convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be
married, and that homosexual persons should be
treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors.
Neither view answers the question before the
court. Our concern is with our state constitution as
a charter of governance for every person properly
within its reach.’’ Id., 312.

The drafters of our constitution carefully crafted its
provisions in general terms, reflecting fundamental
principles, knowing that a lasting constitution was
needed. Like the framers of the federal constitution,
they also ‘‘knew that times can blind us to certain
truths, and later generations can see that laws once
thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to
oppress. As the constitution endures, persons in every
generation can invoke its principles in their own search
for greater freedom.’’ Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539
U.S. 579. Not long ago, this court made the same essential
point, explaining that ‘‘as we engage over time in
the interpretation of our state constitution, we must
consider the changing needs and expectations of the
citizens of our state.’’ State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 411,
680 A.2d 147 (1996). This admonition applies no less
to the guarantee of equal protection embodied in our
constitution than to any other state constitutional provision.
Even though the right to marry is not enumerated in
our constitution, it long has been deemed a basic civil
right. E.g., Loving v. Virginia, supra, 388 U.S. 12
(‘‘marriage is one the basic civil rights of man’’ quotation marks omitted]); Skinner v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86
L. Ed. 1655 (1942) (same).

Although we traditionally
have viewed that right as limited to a union between a
man and a woman, ‘‘if we have learned anything from
the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views
and official policies toward members of minority races
and toward women over the past half-century, it is that
even the most familiar and generally accepted of social
practices and traditions often mask unfairness and
inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated
by those not directly harmed by those practices
or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard
that the traditional, well-established legal rules and
practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial
marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of
women from many occupations and official duties, and
(3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to
separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and
institutions as constitutionally equal treatment.’’ In re
Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th 853–54.

Like these once prevalent views, our conventional
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. To decide
otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional
principles to gay persons and another to all others.
83 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.84

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded
with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment and application for injunctive relief.



edited to remove brackets which made characters invisible

[dgibby]

13. Great News! K&!

[Norrin Radd]

14. Cool.

[Mabus]

15. Way to go Connecticut!

I'm crying here. I'm so happy. One state at a time but it is happening.

[Marrah_G]

16. Congrats to CT !

This is wonderful news.

[JackBeck]

17. Marriage equality will be in front of SCOTUS within the next 15 years.

Yay for CT!

[swimboy]

26. This

is freakin' fantastic!

I'm counting on Obama selecting some of those SCOTUS justices 15 years out.

:thumbsup:

(and :loveya: )

[JackBeck]

31. Hey you!

There are days when I feel an overwhelming sense that this country is finally going to be back on track once Obama gets elected. And then I tune into one of Palin's hate speeches and am reminded that there is still plenty of work to be done.

Miss you.

:pals:

[Maven]

18. YES!!!!!!!

[Duncan Grant]

19. That's wonderful news!

Hopefully, this will demoralize some of those nice Mormons and Xtians who are writing checks to "Yes on 8" in California. :party: :toast: :party:

[Book Lover]

20. Yes! Yes!

"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.

Whether you like it or not....

[racaulk]

21. K&R for the tsunami of change that is coming!!!

That is such great news!!! Thank you CT Supreme Court!

:woohoo:

[dbackjon]

22. WOO HOO!!

3 down, 47 to go!

[closeupready]

23. You said it, lol!

:D

[greeneyedboy]

24. California marriage ban has a small lead in the polls - time to turn it around!

Please, keep the momentum going for civil rights and defeat the marriage ban.

Out-of-state extremists (the Mormon church and Knights of Columbus) have poured millions of bucks into the Yes on 8 campaign--so we need out-of-state sane people to help make it a fair fight.

PLEASE donate a few hours or a few bucks to No on Prop 8.

[FreeState]

28. I agree - DONATE TODAY

http://www.noonprop8.com/home

Every dollar goes towards keeping all of us equal

[cboy4]

25. Great news, although we're going to be blamed for

costing Democrats the election .. just like what happened when the New Jersey Supreme Court came down with its ruling in late October 2006.

[ruggerson]

27. Recommended. Rec it up!!!!!!

[Shallah Kali]

29. Finally some happy news to read!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[bigwillq]

30. YAY! I am a proud Nutmegger right now!

:bounce: :toast:

[NorthCarolina]

32. Trickle some of that American Equality down to us here in NC will ya?

Actually, this is great news. Not sure what effect it will have on Prop 8 in CA, but it is great news nevertheless, and I am very happy for all in CT whose lives will finally be afforded some measure of "completeness".

[greeneyedboy]

33. Dan Savage has a special offer re: marriage equality campaigns

check it out:
Dan Savage promises personal reply to all No on 8 & No on 2 donors