The Connecticut supreme court has denied a conservative group's request to intervene in a lawsuit over whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry in the state. The court decision, released Monday, upholds a lower court's ruling denying the Family Institute of Connecticut's motion to intervene in the case.
Eight gay couples are challenging the constitutionality of the state's marriage laws. That case is pending. Connecticut became the second state in the nation, after Vermont, to allow civil unions. In 2005 the Democrat-controlled legislature passed, and Republican governor M. Jodi Rell signed into law, a bill legalizing civil unions but defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Eight couples sued the state, claiming that civil unions are an inferior status and violate their constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and free expression and association. The plaintiffs sought a court injunction compelling the state to grant each couple a marriage license rather than a civil union license, which the judge denied.
The couples say the laws are unconstitutional because they treat gay and heterosexual couples differently. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a group involved in the case, used a similar argument to win same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
In Connecticut a lower-court judge ruled last month that gay and lesbian couples have not been harmed by the state's decision to legalize same-sex civil unions rather than grant full marriage rights. GLAD has appealed that decision.
The Family Institute wanted legal standing in the case to present evidence that it says shows children are hurt by living in gay and lesbian homes. They also argued that state attorney general Richard Blumenthal was not defending the state's marriage laws aggressively enough.
Connecticut recently became the first state to offer civil unions without a court order, but GLAD and the couples involved in the lawsuit argue that civil unions are not equal to full marriage. Mary Bonauto, an attorney for GLAD, said the court's decision provides "a very helpful reality check," affirming the argument that the Family Institute and heterosexual couples would not be harmed by the plaintiffs' quest for the right to marry. "Obviously we're pleased by the decision," she said. "There was no reason for an antigay group to become part of the case to make its arguments."
The supreme court also agreed with the trial court's opinion that letting the Family Institute join the case could open the door to scores of others, making the complicated case even more unwieldy. "The trial court properly balanced the parties' interest in the expeditious resolution of this action with its desire to avail itself of the institute's proffered expertise," the supreme court opinion said.
The Family Institute argues that the best interests of children are not protected by allowing them to be raised by gay couples and that Blumenthal should have tried to get the case thrown out. Peter Wolfgang, director of public policy at the Hartford-based institute, said Monday that the decision strengthens their resolve to seek a referendum on a proposal to change the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
"We believe strongly that this court ruling proves this decision ought to be left to the citizens of Connecticut," Wolfgang said. "We're disappointed we didn't win. We think the supreme court made the wrong decision and should have followed the good example set by New York's highest court." (AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Jobs | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
