updated
Thursday, 6:55 PM

From the Metro staff at The Boston Globe

Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage

October 10, 2008 11:55 AM Email| Comments (20)| Text size – +

(Fred Beckham/AP)

Joanne Mock, left, and Beth Kerrigan, two of the plaintiffs in the case, spoke to the media in front of the Connecticut State Supreme Court in Hartford in May 2007.

By Michael Levenson and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff

Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage today in a 4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.

In an 85-page decision issued at 11:30 a.m., the court struck down a law barring same-sex marriage, ruling that the state had "failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban."

The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized "as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health … that 'our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.' "

The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.

"In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry," said the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer.

State Senator Andrew J. McDonald, cochairman of the state Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, said he believes that gay couples will be allowed to marry in 20 days, barring attempts by opponents to delay the ruling with procedural maneuvers. He said he expects the Assembly to update the state’s marriage laws when members reconvene in January, without much opposition.

“I continue to expect a bipartisan effort to eradicate any remaining vestiges of discrimination,” McDonald said, hailing the ruling as a “dramatic reaffirmation of Connecticut’s commitment to civil rights and equality for all of her citizens.”

“The court has seen through many of the diversionary arguments of our opponents," McDonald said, "and has firmly established that discrimination in any context and in any form is unacceptable and unconstitutional."

Peter J. Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes same-sex marriage, blasted the ruling.

"The decision is an outrage,” Wolfgang said in a telephone interview. “It is essentially a handful of judges acting as if they were rogue masters usurping the democratic process in Connecticut and radically redefining marriage by judicial fiat.”

Wolfgang said that "our only shot" to stop same-sex marriage is to push for passage of a ballot question that will appear before Connecticut voters next month.

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell said in a statement that she would abide by the decision even though she disagreed with the court because of her belief that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell 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."

Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts, which became the first state to allow same-sex marriage in 2004.

In a scathing 25-page dissenting opinion today, Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that "there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage."

"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

In a dissenting opinion written by Justice David M. Borden and signed by Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, the judges wrote that, contrary to arguments made by the plaintiffs, Connecticut’s civil union law is not discriminatory.

“The development of the law in this state dealing with sexual orientation demonstrates that the legislature had no intention, in passing the civil union statute, to encourage discrimination against or to stigmatize homosexuals,” the judges wrote. “On the contrary, that history supports the conclusion that the legislature has been working toward the eventual passage of a gay marriage bill, and that the civil union statute was an important step in that process.”

In 2005, Connecticut became the first state to establish civil unions without a court order, but that measure did not end the same-sex marriage debate. The eight gay couples who were denied licenses sued the state Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage registrations.

Following the governor's lead, there appeared to be little appetite in the Assembly to fight the ruling.

State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Republican of Fairfield, issued a statement today saying: “While I believe these decisions are better left to elected representatives, it is ultimately the province of the State Supreme Court to interpret our constitution. The Court carried out that responsibility today and ruled that the institution of marriage in Connecticut must include same-sex couples. Whether people agree or disagree, we all need to respect the Court’s decision and abide by the ruling.”

At the Family Institute of Connecticut, Wolfgang said that next month's ballot question asked voters whether the state should hold its first constitutional convention in 40 years. If the measure passes, Wolfgang said, activists opposed to gay marriage will press the Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure would then need approval from the voters, and the soonest it could be ratified would be two years, he said.

“Our only shot is to get a yes vote on Election Day,” Wolfgang said. “That is our one opportunity to let people have the same remedy here in Connecticut as they have out in California,” where voters are also scheduled to take up a ballot amendment next month that would ban same-sex marriage.

» Back to Front Page

20 comments so far...

B"H
Imagine that male homosexuality death rate from AIDS is 30%. This means that 3 out of 10 homosexual males will die. Imagine if 10 million residents of all of the 3 states want to nullify the seat belt law, and the resultant deaths would spiral from 3% to 30%.
Would politicians agree to cancel a law that would increase deaths dramatically in order to garner many votes? That's exactly what they're doing with these same-sex marriages. Giving legitimacy to suicide and manslaughter.
Do the politicians and others care? NO!
There's also the problem of definitions: What is marriage. Perhaps change the meaning of other institutions in order to get votes?
Why not give licenses to anybody who wants to drive?
There's a huge difference between license and freedom.
bhoffinger@aol.com

Posted by boruch n. hoffinger October 23, 08 11:45 PM

in my opinion how can any one or any state tell a gay couple they can not marry who is it hurting if they do? no one. gay coubles still should have every right as given to any other tax paying citizen if they are denied that right then they should not be know as citizens because every citizen of the united states of america is entitled to the same rights as the next. and they only reason there i any fight against it is because there i still no separation of church and state the idea of one man and one woman is a catholic ideal and there for should not have any real voice in this society. and then the argument of provriation yes it is true gays can not have children this is only partly true but the gays can adopt all those kids that the heterosexual peopl decide to have but cant take care fo its a good thing .

Posted by brandon October 27, 08 11:55 AM

The Supreme Court Justices need to repeal their legal decision to make same sex marriage a law because the constitution clearly states the Congress makes laws and not the court system. The supreme court justices are to interpret the law, make recommendations, and send their recommendations back to the Congress. The justices have comitted a unconstitiutional law by creating laws from the bench. I very strongly respectfully ask supreme court justices to repeal their actions taken on same sex marriages because they don't have the authority to conduct such action.

Posted by Tim Stewart October 27, 08 05:19 PM

So you want it to be illegal for same sex couples to marry. So you don't think it is the judge’s place to set things straight. I bet that is the same opinion that many had in the late 60's when the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage. That it went against our constitution to deny a group of people basic right based on their race. I totally agree with that decision.
The reason the LBGT community fights for the right to marry who we choose is the same reason that people fought back in the 60's, nobody has a right to say who we can and cannot marry. In this country we fight discrimination when we are confronted by it. In California we have laws that ban us from discriminating against anyone based on their race, color, creed, national origins, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability, religious or political affiliation, age, or sexual orientation. The reason we have laws like this is to stop people from discriminating against someone. The reason we have laws against discrimination is because we know it is wrong to do it. But by trying to take the right to marry away from us you are discriminating. All we want are the same protections under the law that you have.
You know is my partner gets sick they can deny me access to her, they don’t have to let me in the ambulance with her, they don’t have to let me in the ICU because am not blood, if she is not capable of making medical decisions they turn to her son. If God forbid she dies they turn to her son to make the final arrangements, he gets the burial money, and he gets all her property. But yet I am the one she has been with, I am the one she has told what she wants done, and I am the one who has shared the load financial, but it all goes to her son or her parents if her sons not there. I am lucky that it’s our son and he has told me that he will ask me what to do and I have a good relationship with her parents too, so for me it is not as bad as it could be. But for someone that their family does not agree with their choice of partners they can make these kinds of times a living hell. Then you have all the financial things like a married couple file taxes together and get a break because they are a family. When you are married it gives you the right to have you health coverage cover your spouse. If your spouse is sick you can take family leave without fear of losing your job. If your spouse dies you inherit all of their stuff (money, possessions, pensions, etc.). If your spouse dies you have a right to survivor benefits from social security. If you retire and did not work you can collect social security benefits based on your spouse earning. And the thing is this is just the tip of the iceberg on the protected benefits of marriage. Now some of these you can get by paying a lawyer to do the paperwork, like making a will, giving your partner your power of attorney, and giving your partner you durable power of attorney(this is the medical). But there is also a lot of it you can’t get like the health insurance, the social security benefits, the tax benefits just to name a few.
So why does a part of society get these right handed to them on silver platter and another part of society has spent years fighting for them? Because we don’t fit the mold of what someone thinks we should be. So we are a second class citizen just like black and Chinese were in the early 1900’s. So let’s stop hating each other and start learning to tolerate each other. Everyone has a right to run their life as they choose to.
Just image a couple of decades from now, Our kids and Grandkids are learning about this struggle, just as we learned about the civil rights movement and woman libbers. What do you want to be remembered for; someone filled with hate or someone filled with love.

ALL WE WANT IS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. IF YOU GIVE IT ONE PART OF SOCIETY THEN YOU MUST GIVE IT TO EVERYONE IN SOCIETY. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT TO EVERYONE THEN TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE SELECT FEW THAT HAVE IT!!!! THEN WE WOULD HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!!!

Posted by Pam Wilkins October 28, 08 06:00 AM

I am amazed that we look to outdated rich uneducated heterosexuals to decide whether gay people can marry. It doesn't hurt or benefit them so we need not to look to them for the decision. As for religion, if I am not mistaken religion should play no part in our right to marry our same sex partner as the law is above religion and not a part of it. I thought America was the land of the free. I guess your only free if you can afford it. Same sex marriage doesn't promote being gay, you either are or you are not. We can build bombs to blow up the world but we can't agree that being gay is not a choice.

Custom Created Art Glass

Posted by Ian November 4, 08 01:11 PM

Today in time people say we have freedom,what freedom?Thier is no freedom when were being dictated on what we can do and not do.As for Gay Marriage I am all for it not against it.I feel we should be able to marry who we want no matter if its man & man or woman &woman.We need to stop letting religion and people dictate our rights.Gay couples are people to and they should be created equally.Gay marriage should be legal and not banned.We should have legal gay marriages and not civil unions.Reliogion should not have no play in gay marriage,or anything.I support the gay couples and will all the wasy .aas

Posted by Robert W.Price Jr. November 4, 08 06:22 PM

Our first amendment states, that, there will be NO state religion.
Defining marriage as a holy ceremony states our country is a christian-islamic-jewish, and they list goes on, nation. We are not, we are a nation of all people. The tenth amendment basically states, that, you are free, and any freedoms not specifically given to you here, shall therefor be imposed here, to promote freedom of all.
Just as the majority opinion stated, it is illegal to discriminate, no matter what. Separate but equal clearly doesnt work. Domestic partnerships afford very little the same rights as marriage, civil unions more, but still, the government sees you not as married but 'together'.
In my opinion, if I cannot get married, should I not have to pay taxes, since I do not have the same rights as everyone else? I believe its only fair.

Posted by John November 5, 08 01:27 PM

There is absolutely no legitimate argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry the only people with whom they can fall in love. The reasoning boils down to three different arguments: Marriage historically has been defined as one man and one woman, marriage is an institution for procreation, and marriage is a religious institution and homosexuality is an abomination to "God". All three arguments are entirely devoid of logical basis and cannot bear up under even the smallest amount of scrutiny.

As far as the first argument is concerned, one should consider any argument based on the societally accepted definition of a word as highly suspect. Language is nothing more than an arbitrary medium for communication concepts. Concepts are far more complex than such a medium. There is no inherent truth in language. Language can only be said to convey our thoughts or feelings. Therefor it is highly illogical to assert that marriage has historically been defined and such a definition should never be changed. It is far more logical and historically accurate to say that words are used to convey our ever changing understanding of the world and therefor are not fixed or immutable.

Further, it is also entirely illogical to fix such a definition to one man and one woman historically as such can only be asserted with any true authority for the last two thousand years in Europe. If one were to consider the broader spectrum of social institutions between men and women global over the span of the last 10,000 years, one would come to understand that, although being the most common, the one man and one woman "rule" is hardly universal and the assertion of "sacrosanct" is laughable at best.

When considering the second argument, one merely must ask three fundamental questions:

1) Should people incapable of procreation be considered ineligible for marriage?
2) Should marriages be considered invalidated if at least one of the two partners become infertile?
3) Is marriage a requirement for procreation?

I believe it entirely unlikely that anyone would answer any of these questions affirmatively. Instead, they would consider the questions and then ask why such were being asked.

The reason is, those three questions strike directly at the assumptions that are the basis of the second argument. If one agrees with the second argument then one must answer at least one, if not all of the three, questions affirmatively. Failure to do so reveals the illogical bias against same sex marriage. It's obvious proof that marriage and procreation are not specifically inter-twined and thus proof that such an argument is not just invalid but truly sophomoric and without any logical basis.

With reference to the third, one merely needs to consider the number of religions that exist and compare that against the number of religions that specifically prohibit same-sex couplings. Even just a little research shows that there are many religions that one must logically accept as valid. Consider just a small sampling of current world religions:

*) Bábism
*) Bahá'í
*) Christianity
*) Islam
*) Judaism
*) Ayyavazhi
*) Buddhism
*) Hinduism
*) Confucianism
*) Shinto
*) Taoism
*) Batuque
*) Candomblé
*) Bön

Out of those, only three specifically ban homosexuality, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. While it is true that these Davidic religions currently constitute the majority belief of the worlds population, that is primarily the result of conversion, either coerced or voluntary, although the former is the primary cause, that in no way confers moral authority by them over other religions. Then, when one considers the scope of human religion historically, one comes to realize that a vast minorities of religions hold the same ban on homosexual relations. It then becomes quite clear that the argument that homosexuality is an abomination to "God" is not just illogical but is an outright assertion that society at large or government can invalidate religions based on their consideration of homosexual practices.

However, if all religions are considered equally valid for their adherents and equally deserving of respect one must consider that their consideration of homosexual practices are also equally valid. Thus, this last argument against same sex marriage, when scrutinized, is the least valid of all the obviously invalid arguments.

The only logical conclusion then is that there is no valid argument against same sex marriage. Such a ban is obviously and transparently prejudicial and devoid of all logical merit. Further, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that a ban on same-sex marriage is also in violation of the Constitution of The United States of America.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America protects the freedom of religion. One can hardly assert that such a freedom exists when laws for all citizens are made solely due to the prejudices of a minority of religions.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America provides equal protection for minorities. Considering that no valid argument exists that homosexuality is voluntary one is forced to consider that homosexuality may fall under such an “equal protection” law.

It is entirely true that the majority of our population is heterosexual, to one extent or another. However, that does not confer on them the right to define mixed-sex union as the only valid union. When citizens of democratic nations restrict the rights of minorities they pervert democracy into a form of totalitarianism. Democracy should never be used as an argument to strip or restrict rights.

In summary, there is no valid argument against same-sex marriage. Therefor, there is no logical reason to restrict it.

Posted by Jay Brown November 6, 08 09:40 AM

There should be no commingling of terminology. Let it be called Gay Marriage and defined as such so that people can have a choice as to what kind of marriage they want.

Posted by Katherine November 7, 08 02:44 PM

same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct
a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing to it our more
equitable queer value system. Sure, marriage would ensure our
inheritance rights, child-rearing rights, visitation rights, and a slew
of financial benefits that mere “domestic partnership” arrange-ments
have so far failed to deliver. But it is also a chance to wholly
transform the definition of family in American culture.

Posted by LH November 8, 08 05:50 PM

Can't we all just get along? All I'm looking for are the same benefits afforded married heterosexual couples. Note that I said benefits and not rights. This is not about special rights, for the record. In the constitution we all have equal protection under the law, according to the 14th amendment. However, gay and lesbian couples do not have the benefits including pension, social security, tax, and hospital visitation. Some would state, "Well all you have to do is get a lawyer to work out legal documents for you." Whether we believe that or not, legal documents can be challenged. I don't understand why all the fuss. We're not bothering anyone by whom we love. Our union doesn't affect anyone's marriage. And to those who think it does, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by James November 9, 08 08:26 PM

The problem most people of faith have with homosexuality is the morality of it, whether you believe that it is a behavior that people are born into or a personal preference, our faith teaches us that it is immoral. Our society has come a long way towards acceptance of homosexuality in recent years mainly due to media and Hollywood depicting it as normal behavior through movies and on television. Personally I don't have an issue with it as long as it kept in the bedroom, and if two people want to live and love together that is fine to, I certainly don't feel threatened by homosexuality, or by the people who engage in this type of behavior. What I do take issue with is when judges legitimize the immorality, and cheapen the institution of marriage by ruling against the majority and legalizing gay marriage. It is not that I care that if two intimate people want to be recognized and enjoy the same legal and financial benefits of a traditional couple, what concerns me is as a civilized society where should we draw the line, if the only criteria is that people love each other than why not legalize polygamy, or allow siblings to marry, or parents to marry their offspring. What if a man 'loved' another man and another women, should we allow bisexual marriages also. Could we eventually see judges rule to allow humans to marry animals or inanimate objects.... As a civilized society we need to have boundaries and if we accept this behavior as 'normal' by legitimizing it through marriage then we have blurred those boundaries and I think we open ourselves up to challenges beyond our comprehension. Lets not see this for anything more than it really is, because although they would like us to believe that there is no difference between "same-sex" and traditional couples when it comes to marriage, the reality is that traditional couples (a man and a women) are on this earth to procreate our species (create children), same sex couples, are two men or two women, who although may legitimately love each other, are simply together to pleasure each other through unnatural sexual activity. If you still don't believe that gay marriage is a sign of moral decay, try and explain the difference (honestly) to your seven year old, and see what their reaction is. Let them have their equal rights through civil unions, but don’t give them special rights or blur the distinction of a traditional marriage by opening up this institution to immoral behavior.

Posted by Ian Rogers November 12, 08 02:47 PM

WAY TO GO CT!!!

Posted by Lori Hinds November 12, 08 07:18 PM

Ian, you are an idiot. Explain the act of sex, any type of act of sex, to a seven year old and they will be disgusted. Explain intercourse between a man and a woman to a seven year old, and they will think it is disgusting.

I am ashamed at our "civilized society" for the prejudices that we still have. For a society that is supposed to be so developed, you would think a simple idea of equality would permeate our country.

If you have a wife, imagine the government telling you your marriage wasn’t legal because the majority of the country decided you shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else. Are you saying you would respect the majority of the country (because if it’s the majority they must know best) and not think you and your partner should have the same rights and be allowed to wed?

Oh, and a bisexual marriage? That’s not even a thing. A person who describes themselves as bisexual (being attracted to both males and females) could marry someone of the same sex, or some of the opposite sex. In fact, I’m sure there are bisexuals out there who have married someone of the opposite sex in a “traditional marriage.” How risqué!

By the way, I’m a heterosexual. I’m just stating that so you know that all types of people are angered by this ignorance and inequality.

Posted by Julie D. November 18, 08 02:43 PM

JP in CT will upgrade all her past civil union couples for free to marriage status

I am a JP in CT who has officiated at about 100 civil unions and several same sex marriages.

If any of my civil union couples want to be married, contact me. If you come to Norwalk, CT there will be no charge for my previous couples.
You will have to pay for your license ($30) and certified copy ($10).

These couples are all over the US. They came to CT because there is no residency requirement to be married in CT. No blood test, no witnesses, no waiting period. $30 and a photo id gets the license.

For same sex couples who have not had a civil union performed by me, if you come to Norwalk or Darien (same day), I am offering a discount.

Contact me at mary@ct-jp.com

Mary C Pugh
www.ct-jp.com

Posted by Mary C Pugh November 20, 08 08:52 AM

question? if a foreigner gets married with an american, does he has the right to get residency and all the legal rights as a hetero couple? how does that work wit inmigration purposes?

Posted by Andres November 20, 08 03:48 PM

children are confused enough .to say it is normel for man to be with a man and a woman to be with a women is normel .and all peapole that believe jesus chose to come down from heaven give us a clue how we should live and die for us because he loves us and has a plane for are life,we are the haters of society .is wrong i am no better then a gay person i know that but to say you need your law to suit a sexual prefernce is wrong .who you sleep with does not define who you are as a humanbeing .before i got saved i had numerous relationships but i did not ask congress if they could help.eql log

Posted by matt December 23, 08 12:03 AM

wow u guys amazed me.. I much agree on what Pam Wilkins wrote... no more drama... lets keep love and peace,.,, and all we want is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!!! just like everyone else...

Posted by Angie January 2, 09 11:04 AM

Very nice site!

Posted by John1379 May 19, 09 08:17 AM

I don't get it.... Everything is turned into religion, but yet even so, they are going against it. How can you preach about gays, and it being so wrong, when your going against the word of god while doing it? Doesn't it say in the bible that there is only ONE God? Then why are people trying to do his work? How can you judge me or anyone else for being gay? God also says that all sins are equal right? so why is it a problem for gays, but you people forgive murderers and rapists? The "law" releases criminals, but gay's can't even get married? whate the hell is that? This makes no sense to me! oh and one more thing, if it is a sin, then let us handle that with God when that time comes, and mind your own damn business!!!!

Posted by Stephanie fennell May 28, 09 03:30 PM