Same-sex marriage rights recognized by Connecticut Supreme Court

Published on October 11th, 2008

Successful plaintiffs and their twin sons

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to get married…

“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 said.

“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.”

The decision would only allow gay couples the state benefits of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denies gay couples federal recognition of state marriages, which provides for federal benefits with regard to Social Security, taxation, immigration and others.

Who knows? Perhaps a dramatic overhaul of both Congress and the White House might leave the nation with a government that rejects second-class citizenship?

50 users responded in " Same-sex marriage rights recognized by Connecticut Supreme Court "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Russell Bynum said, on October 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am

We can only hope this will foster a more positive response from other states and the federal government. You would think after Woman’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement that we as a nation would be beyond such petty and trivial differences and disagreements…

# 2 contempt said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am

Another nail in the coffin… tap, tap, tap.

# 3 who cares said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:19 am

how wonderful
how important
what comes next – same sex divorces
if straight people talked about their preferences in so loud a manner they would be told to be quiet
work hard , contribute to society and pay taxes
who cares

# 4 Floyd said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:34 am

#3: Yes, same sex divorces could follow same sex marriages. The idea is that the laws regarding marriage should apply to all potential cou”who,” so I have no idea why you’re getting all cranky about it.

By the way I’m straight, and have been married to the same woman for 26 years. I do have a lesbian sister who would not be allowed to get married if she wished, because of the current laws in her state. Lesbians/gays do “work hard, contribute to society and pay taxes,” just like the rest of us.

# 5 Buzz said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:36 am

First women, then black people, now gays.

This country is [comment deleted due to incendiary and misleading rhetoric.]

# 6 Greg Allen said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:44 am

The Religious Right views gay marriage as an “attack” on straight marriage.

Do they have any empirical evidence to support that fear?

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Vermont all allow it, now, to one degree or another. Hawaii too?

It will be interesting to see if marriage and/or divorce rates among straights changes at all in those states.

My guess is not.

# 7 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:48 am

#2 – contemptible one

>>Another nail in the coffin… tap, tap, tap.

Yeah, man! At this rate, we’re going to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Just imagine. Treating all people equally, regardless of race, sex, age, ethnic/ racial background, sexual orientation….the horror! THE HORROR!!!

The End Times are truly near…..

# 8 Peanut Butter and Jam said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am

Hiya America:

Welcome to the rest of the western world… we’ve been wondering when you’d join us…

-Ben.

# 9 Stinker said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am

That’s just great. Hooray for you. Don’t you just love it when Judges act like legislators??

BTW, Obama and Biden aren’t in favor of this either, so why don’t you go and talk to them if this is such a great idea? After all the democrats are the party of civil rights champions…right? right?

# 10 god said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am

#9 – why does equal rights before the law frighten you?

# 11 contempt said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:08 am

#7 Mister Mustard

I’ve noticed that you like treat some groups more equal than others. Yes the Horror.

# 12 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am

#11 – contemptible one

>>I’ve noticed that you like treat some groups
>>more equal than others. Yes the Horror.

“more equal than others”?? WTF are you talking about? Do you have an actual point here, or is this just typical fearmongering?

# 13 Sea Lawyer said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am

Nearly every privilege that comes with marriage can already be accomplished through other means. Others, like insurance policies, are private contracts and “who is covered” shouldn’t be dictated by the government anyway.

# 14 contempt said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:24 am

#12 Mister Mustard

There are just some groups you constantly attack like a pit bull with lipstick, while others get a pass for no reason other than you think by taking their side it somehow absolves the guilt you have acquired somewhere in life.

As you see, fear has nothing to do with it.

# 15 Paddy-O said, on October 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am

#10 “why does equal rights before the law frighten you?”

Yet another group gets to experience the marriage penalty tax!

# 16 QB said, on October 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am

#9 Stinker said: “Don’t you just love it when Judges act like legislators??”

When legislators get gutless, that’s what happens.

# 17 Stinker said, on October 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am

#10 Where have you been. They already do have all the same civil rights since 1964.

But you ask the wrong quesiton, as your’s supposes that they don’t already have equal rights. These citizens have the exact same rights as you or I do, and they always have.
See #13’s logic.

Apparently, in this land of tolerance, thats not enough.

# 18 Joe said, on October 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am

I have yet to hear that gays have challenged decisions in places like the deep south or the Midwest. Even blacks had the courage to stand up to the bigotry the deep south had. Gays know that winning in places like Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut are really empty victories and a real victory in Alabama or Georgia would mean something for the entire nation. The again, Prop 8 here in California has a real chance of winning, and if it passes, Gays only Option will be to challenge in the Supreme court, which, with 5 Catholics on the Bench could mean a fatal blow from which they won’t be able to recover.

# 19 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 9:44 am

>>Nearly every privilege that comes with
>>marriage can already be accomplished through
>>other means.

So. What’s the problem then? Calling it “marriage” is nothing more than a cosmetic change, in your mind.

Are you really that het up about minutiae?

# 20 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am

#17 – Stinker

>>These citizens have the exact same rights as
>>you or I do, and they always have.
>>See #13’s logic.

#13 is full of shit. And even if she weren’t, what’s the big deal? If they “already” have all the rights and privileges of married couples, why is everyone so hot under the collar about calling their contract a “marriage”?

# 21 Jim W. said, on October 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am

yea! Anther law written by men in robes instead of by the people or the legislature. your constitutional rights at work

-end sarcasm

# 22 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, on October 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am

That’s an adorable family photo there. The kids will have twice as many loving parents as many less fortunate children have.

# 23 Angel H. Wong said, on October 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am

#20

“why is everyone so hot under the collar about calling their contract a “marriage”?”

Because, with the aid of a sleazy lawyer and a Christian judge the two-faced relatives can easily null whatever union not declared officially as a marriage in case one of the partners die and thus repossess half of the assets, forcing the surving one for either sell off their half for virtually nothing or be denied full custody of the children just because the Christian judge thinks the Bible is above the Constitution.

# 24 sargasso said, on October 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am

Cool Superman suit. The kid has established a strong masculine role model.

# 25 jccalhoun said, on October 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am

“if straight people talked about their preferences in so loud a manner they would be told to be quiet”

Yes, because there aren’t any shows or magazines or movies about a man and a woman dating, or divorcing, or dating or anything. We heteros are quiet as church mice when it comes to talking about love…

# 26 Sam said, on October 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Oh no! Now people are going to be marrying their cats!

Also, gay people have a higher incidence of HIV, and people with AIDS are a financial burden to the health care system. Therefore, gays in general are more of a financial liability. Gay marriage will encourage sexual transmission of HIV giving more people AIDS and increase the financial burden of health care on employers. This excessive burden on business will hurt the economy. Therefore, we should disallow gay marriage.

Yeah, somebody actually argued that (less coherently of course).

# 27 Bryan Carney said, on October 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

My own polemic:

In reference to the accusation of bench legislation, I need to urge those who hold such views to consider that point moot, momentarily. In a representative republic, such as we have, in which direct democracy is not an answer to issues of the day, but a quagmire of majority rule, high courts sometimes rule against the majority opinion for the sake of minority rights. Those in the minority will welcome the clarification of the canon and those who hold with the majority must see otherwise.

Pardon my pedantry but this is how I see it. Angry reactionaries responding to impudent gays and their aces in the hole is what #9 (and #21, I think) fear. Clarification of legislation is a function of high courts. What is your stance?, #9? We will never know b/c you don’t have the brains to support one. That’s what your silence will say.

In response to the opinion that gays have always had the same rights as others and are just recipients of protected or special class rights, I concur that gays can be viewed as a special class who need judicial intervention. This is supported by myriad discussions such as these. Past traditions are simply burdens carried, dragged by those willing to endure the stench of deceaced affinities. Any deferrence by the state to any past traditions must not be tolerated by a free society and must be hunted and burned by the guardians of the peaceful and orderly.

Any more writing and my true colors will show.

# 28 Sea Lawyer said, on October 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I have any problem with what people call each other. My problem is with the government thrusting itself into the affairs of private entities to begin with.

# 29 Peanut Butter and Jam said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Sam Also, gay people have a higher incidence of HIV, and people with AIDS are a financial burden to the health care system. Therefore, gays in general are more of a financial liability. Gay marriage will encourage sexual transmission of HIV giving more people AIDS and increase the financial burden of health care on employers. This excessive burden on business will hurt the economy. Therefore, we should disallow gay marriage.

Wow, are you serious or just trying to be funny? Just in case you are being serious (or someone takes it as serious): single gay men are more likely to sleep around and get and transmit AIDS/HIV than married gay men who are in longer term relationships with one person. Therefor gay marriage should not only be legal, but should be encouraged.

# 30 QB said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Up in Canada we legalized same sex marriage several years ago. Since then God has punished us by destroying our banking system.

# 31 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

#28 – Sea Lawyer

>>Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I
>>have any problem with what people call each
>>other.

Well, now you’re confusing me, counselor.

Are you saying that you have no problem if same-sex couples call themselves “married”, in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples call themselves “married”?

# 32 QB said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

#28 Sea Lawyer

“Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I have any problem with what people call each other.”

OK, you’re an idiot.

# 33 Sea Lawyer said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

#31, yes, stupid people are easily confused, so I imagined you would be.

# 34 QB said, on October 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Wait for it…..

# 35 Gay M said, on October 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Actually the HIV thing is a scam so that argument does not hold much water. People are not going to marry their cats as they cannot say “I do”. Legally, they have to be able to sign the forms and say more than “meow”. Anything else I can clear up for you before the election?

# 36 Thomas said, on October 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

> Who knows? Perhaps a
> dramatic overhaul of
> both Congress and the
> White House might leave
> the nation with a government
> that rejects second-class
> citizenship?

Unlikely, since it was a Democrat that signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

# 37 Brian said, on October 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I hear people who oppose gay marriage attempt to say that gays already enjoy all the same benefits as traditional married couples, but that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.

Their reason? They say that allowing gays to marriage would harm the institution of marriage.

Where is their petition to get divorce banned? Isn’t divorce the only one true threat to marriage? If preserving the institution of marriage is your goal, why aren’t you pressuring to get divorce banned?

Oh I know. It’s because you aren’t interested in preserving marriage, simply denying basic civil rights to a segment of the population whose choice of love and contentment you disagree with.

Hypocrites.

# 38 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

It does not follow allowing gays to marry is all that bad for religious people.

If secular society prefers unnatural unproductive unions, that’s their loss.

We who believe God will judge all things need to follow Scriptural advice and separate ourselves from them, invent new ceremonies that distinguish Godly marriages from the profane.

New terminology can be popularized so all immediately know what kind of union is meant by “marriage.”

Society can redefine terms like marriage any way they like, we have the right to create our own terminology to represent our reality.

Perhaps “in holy matrimony” instead of “married”, or “blessed union” which has the additional function of expressing positively, what we think of our marriages.

# 39 Mister Mustard said, on October 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

#38 – ‘fredo

>>which has the additional function of
>>expressing positively, what we think of our
>>marriages.

Yeah. Until the divorce. Will you come up with a new holy-rolling name to express positively what you think about the ending of your holy union?

btw, many churchgoers and clergy don’t have the same tight-assed, bigoted feelings about same-sex marriage as yours seems to. Are you going to sue to prevent them from using “blessed union” and “in holy matrimony”?

I suggest you go back to church and pray to your “god” of hatred and alienation, and leave the rest of us alone.

# 40 Mr. Fusion. said, on October 11th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Well, all I can say is “About time!!!”

I did notice one of the dissenting Justices wrote that marriage is intended for the procreation of citizens. What he didn’t answer is why we allow sterile couples to marry or even remain married.

# 41 MikeN said, on October 12th, 2008 at 4:50 am

>“attack” on straight marriage.

Do they have any empirical evidence to support that fear?

Well they had to change marriage forms from ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to ‘Partner A’ & ‘Partner B’

This is a redefinition of marriage. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
Gays and lesbians were always free to marry, for example Gov McGreevey.

This decision and California’s is a reason to avoid the ‘compromise’ position of recognizing civil unions, then the courts turn around and say well you’re discriminating if you don’t call it marriage. These are legislative decisions.

# 42 Mr. Fusion said, on October 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am

#30, QB,

As someone suffering under Canada’s repressive “equal rights” marriage law, could you tell us how many straight marriages have been destroyed? Although it might be rash of me, how is your own marriage fairing since that terrible law against natural human dignity was passed?

I wonder what the suicide rate in Canada is now. Are the asylums all full? How are the mental health professionals holding up? Do they need more Prozac and Wellbutron?

I understand in California so many straight people couldn’t handle gays marrying they are putting a suicide net under the Golden Gate Bridge.

# 43 bobbo said, on October 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am

Fusion–I saw that. I wonder if the suicide rate off the SF bridge would go up or down if a special spot were identified: “Jump Here”.

After a few tests, maybe a set of revolving blades could be installed with a 25 cent video slot installed to start the blades rotating: “You now have one minute to jump to certain death and maceration into the ocean. No refunds if you change your mind.”

# 44 QB said, on October 12th, 2008 at 8:59 am

Mr Fusion,

It is (and should be in my mind) an non-issue. The law has been challenged once by a free vote in parliament and was easily defeated. When the law came in the country was split 55-45, now it’s probably 65-35.

I have religious friends (mainly Catholic) and they’ve said that their church marriages are actually stronger, not weaker. They believe that marriage is a sacrament and the ceremony now is now more meaningful since it separates and reinforces their beliefs. In other words, they focus on the religious significance, not the legalities. Didn’t expect that.

There are still a few wingnuts who claim that gay marriage “makes them gay” as well. Our medical system provides Prozac at a reasonable price.

The most important thing is that it shows the strength (at least in some areas) of the parliamentary system, even with a minority government. The legislature was able to do their job without the craziness of the US system (multiple checks and balances, populism, etc). The whole debate lasted ~5 weeks and was made law.

# 45 Thomas said, on October 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am

#41
I’ve mentioned before, it is already the case that any two people or more can consider themselves married (or joined or whatever term you wish to pick). No degree of government intervention can prevent that. The core issue is whether governments and businesses are permitted to deny privileges to one type of union purely based on sexual preference.

If you limit the definition of “marriage” to unions between a men and women, you are allowing the government to differentiate between different types of unions. That enables businesses to do the same.

If we mandate that all types of unions must be afforded the same rights and privileges, then people and governments can call marriage whatever they wish. Until that time, it must be accepted that term “marriage” has a larger legal meaning and implication than its vernacular roots.

# 46 Greg Allen said, on October 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

>> MikeN said, on October 12th, 2008 at 4:50 am
>> Well they had to change marriage forms from ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to ‘Partner A’ & ‘Partner B’

No one is forcing you, MikeN, to call your wife “Partner B.”

That’s my point, actually, how does a gay couple on your block affect _your_ marriage whatsoever?

But my specific question is: is there any research gay marriages negatively impacted traditional marriages?

As a patriotic American, I think you have to have a damn-good reason to deny other Americans their equal rights.

# 47 Mister Mustard said, on October 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

#46 – Greg Allen

>>No one is forcing you, MikeN, to call your
>>wife “Partner B.”

Lyin’ Mike doesn’t have a wife. He lives in his mom’s basement, watching gay porn all day.

# 48 zefyr said, on October 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

As a bi man who knows a lot of gay guys and some women, I can tell you almost all of them really want are the same rights strait people have {for better or worse}. Partner Health benefits, filing jointly on taxes, death benefits, Community Property, right to make medical decisions, etc. Some of these can be duplicated through legal documents/contracts, but not all, an not w/o sometimes substantial cost.

Personally, I wish laws were never made w marriage in mind. We are all individuals, but, thats how everything is structured so, why wouldn’t you want other individual to have the same rights you do as a strait person?

# 49 Tom McMahon said, on October 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Yes indeed, enough of that troublesome “government by the people” business. Much too messy . . .

# 50 votetheday.com said, on October 13th, 2008 at 4:31 am

What is your opinion on this hot topic? Should same sex pairs have equal rights with different sex ones, and be allowed to get married and have children? Or you are absolutely against it and think, that the less rights homosexuals gain, the less of them will appear? – http://www.votetheday.com/society-18/same-sex-marriage-305

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!