Marriage Equality Spreads
By TwistieThe Connecticut Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have the right to marry. That makes Connecticut the third state (after Massachusetts and California) to decree that gay couples have the same civil rights to marriage as straight couples. Connecticut was the first state to offer civil unions as an alternative for gay and lesbian couples, but the high court has determined now that refusing these couples the right to marriage denies them the financial, social, and emotional benefits of marriage.
The ruling comes as a result of a suit brought by eight same-sex couples in 2004 when they were deinied marriage licenses. The suit stated that the denial of marriage rights violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Yesterday, by a majority of four to three, the court agreed.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Richard N. Palmer, was that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples would lead to separate standards.
“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,” Palmer wrote.
Of course there’s opposition to the ruling. The Family Institute of Connecticut – a political action group that opposes gay marriage – called the ruling “outrageous” in their reaction.
But while Governer M. Jodi Rell disagrees with the ruling, she is not planning to oppose it:
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” she 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.”
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has said there will be no appeal, and the court’s decision will go into effect on October 28th. State Senator Michael Lawlor goes further. He expects the General Assembly to pass a law codifying the cout’s ruling next year.
“It’s important that both the legislature and the court weigh in,” he said. “The court is saying that it’s a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it’s constitutionally required, it’s the right thing to do.”
Of course the happiest reaction was that of the plaintiffs in the case who can now see their chance to marry legally not in a hazy future, but just around the corner.
“I can’t believe it. We’re thrilled, we’re absolutely overjoyed. We’re finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married,” said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
After thirty three years of waiting, I can only say it’s about damn time.
That, and I wish them every joy.
Related note: I did what I could to make it easy...
October 11th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Now if it would only spread to New York so my mom can get married!
The opposition to this ruling drives me crazy. Marriage as sanctioned by the state is simply a certain kind of legal contract entered into by two consenting adults. No one is suggesting we force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples or that we force everyone accept the morality of marriages between homosexuals. Heck, religious institutions and private citizens are still free to discriminate against and dislike gay couples.
What went down in Conn. is a legal rights issue — not a moral one! — and there’s no logical reason why two consenting adults should not be able to enter into a state sanctioned legal contract with one another, regardless of what’s in their pants.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
WooHoo!
Massachusetts did it the same way. The lawsuit appealed to Yankee fairness about licensing laws.
There was a strategy in place which was intended to be played closer to the Massachusetts decision. Vermont having been the first with Civil Unions (Connecticut was first without a court order to do so) and New Hampshire having also approved the Civil Unions, there was going to then be a pressure to take it to New York, relying on regional pressure, under the “full faith and credit” proviso of the US Constitution. (On a side note New Jersey also has full Civil Union rights according Wikipedia — so it must be true. *G*)
The Mayor of San Francisco unilaterally declaring that his city could marry people without having gone through the legal hoops ended up really fouling the strategy. I hope Prop 8 is defeated in California. If it is, then that combined with “the New England Pressure” strategy could bring New York in next.
I’d also like to mention Wisconsin. The state does not permit gay Civil Unions or marriage, but they are the first state to declare that they will honor the “full faith and credit” section of the Constitution and acknowledge the unions and marriages of any gay couple moving to Wisconsin from another state.
It may not be cutting edge. It may only be a baby step. But when its compared with the hatred and vehemence encountered in many other states, I think it’s a quiet bravery. It may also be, as it was with miscegenation so many years ago, the first tiny step in getting gay marriage acknowledged nationally.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
NtB, the day same-sex marriage is legalized in New York, I’ll boogie down in delight for your mother and her partner.
I always say, if you don’t want to get gay married, then don’t. Problem solved. After all, I don’t like cigarettes, so I don’t smoke them. If others choose to smoke, that’s their decision. I’m not going to campaign to get cigarettes made illegal. By the same token, I’m old enough to remember the end of the interracial marriage controversy in vague terms. Even as a small child I got the point that just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s mandatory. And to this day any church in the country can turn away any couple they don’t want to marry for whatever reason they may have. The law just says that if two consenting adults who are not legally ineligible choose to marry, someone has to do the job. Marriage may or may not have a spiritual element for the couple involved, but it’s invariably a legal contract.
Fabrisse, thanks for the update on the Wisconson situation. Baby steps are still steps. I won’t sneeze at them. I do know that New Jersey has a formal Civil Union option in place, because I actually saw it featured on an episode of Whose Wedding Is It, Anyway? with two men who are wild about musical theater and insisted on composing musical vows. That’s not something I’d actually recommend, what with the way many of us get a bit choked up on our wedding days.
And believe me, I’m definitely voting against Prop 8.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
HAPPY NATIONAL COMING OUT DAY!!!!
October 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Great news! Well done, Connecticut!
October 13th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I hope this is the beginning of a domino effect….and that soon from the east coast onward a wave of SENSE will sweep the nation and states will realize that the right to marry is not one you can limit based on orientation! (I think the only thing that should limit it, really, is age/ability of consent…)
I doubt my state will be on the bandwagon (oh Texas, you big loveable lummox)….which makes me sad.