The Connecticut supreme court Friday issued a 4-3 decision in favor of eight gay couples who were the plaintiffs in Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Connecticut will now become the third state in the country behind Massachusetts and California where gay couples are allowed equal access to marriage. As in California and Massachusetts, out-of-state couples will be eligible to marry in Connecticut.
The court found that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and that civil unions, which are available in the state, were an unequal institution. "We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority.
The final paragraph of the decision charged that the equal protection of gays and lesbians must be prioritized over traditional views of the institution of marriage: "...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. 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."
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed the case in 2004 on behalf of eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Madison, Conn. The couples had been in committed relationships ranging from 10 to 30 years, with many of them raising children. The defendant, the state's Department of Public Health, oversees the registration of all Connecticut's marriages.
In June of 2006, Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marital rights did not violate the Connecticut constitution, at which point the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the state supreme court.
Oral arguments for the case took place in May of 2007. “Separate institutions for different classes of citizens are now unheard of anywhere in American jurisprudence,” GLAD senior attorney Ben Klein told the high court. “Our history has taught us that separation serves no other purpose than to mark a class of citizens as inferior.” (The Advocate)
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.
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.
Stepping in and Playing It Straight? 
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Career Opportunities | 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.
