The long-simmering question of whether same-sex couples in Connecticut should be allowed to marry is now in the hands of seven state supreme court justices.
Arguments in the potentially groundbreaking case wrapped up in about three hours Monday, but it likely will be months before justices rule on the lawsuit that eight same-sex couples originally filed in August 2004.
The couples, who have been together between 13 and 31 years, allege that their guarantees of equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses in Madison Town Hall.
Their case also raises questions about whether the state's 2005 civil unions law—the first adopted nationwide without court pressure—helped or hurt same-sex couples in their quest for equality.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule that the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social, and emotional benefits of marriage.
''What is denied to these families is something that goes to the heart of equal protection, which is the right to be part of the fabric of society when they are just the same as other couples and other families,'' said their attorney, Bennett Klein.
The state argued Monday that Connecticut's civil unions law gives the couples the equality they seek and that the issue is a policy question best left to lawmakers rather than judges.
''All of those rights and benefits, at least under state law, have been granted,'' Asst. Atty. Gen. Jane Rosenberg said. ''From a legal perspective, there are no rights that have been taken away from that group, and, in fact, equal rights have now been given to that group.''
As several states consider civil union laws, the Connecticut case could have nationwide ramifications. People on both sides said Monday they are well aware of its significance.
''Our 9-year-old said it best: 'How is the world supposed to get better if nothing changes?' '' said Geraldine Artis of Clinton, who is a plaintiff along with her partner of 13 years, Suzanne Artis.
One recurring theme at Monday's hearing was whether gays and lesbians should be considered a protected group—a legal term for a segment of the population that, among other things, is particularly vulnerable to discrimination and lacks political power.
Peter Wolfgang, public policy director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes same-sex marriage, said that claim is weak. He cited the existence of Connecticut's civil unions law, the growing number of openly gay lawmakers in powerful positions, and a recent legislative committee vote in favor of same-sex marriages.
''I think it would be very hard to argue that gays and lesbians are powerless in Connecticut in 2007,'' Wolfgang said after the hearing.
If justices agree with the same-sex couples, they could order the case back to the trial court, with instructions to rule in favor of the couples. They could also order the general assembly to consider overhauling the current marriage laws.
Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry.
Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine, and Washington have laws recognizing either civil unions or domestic partnerships, and a civil unions law is expected to take effect in New Hampshire in January. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs. (Stephanie Reitz, 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.
