Same-sex marriages and civil unions in Connecticut
State Supreme Court OK's
same-sex marriage (SSM)
Seven same-sex couples in Madison, CT
applied for marriage licenses on 2004-AUG-23, and, as they expected, were
refused. Each was in a loving, committed
long-term relationship of from 13 to 31 years duration.
The couples filed a lawsuit (Kerrigan & Mock v. the
CT Department of Public Health) 1 on 2004-AUG-25 in New Haven Superior Court
with the assistance of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) of
Boston, MA. This is the same group who had previously won marriage
rights in Massachusetts and civil union rights in
Vermont for same-sex couples.
Their case was based on their belief that Connecticut
marriage law conflicted with the Constitution of the state.
||Articles 1, 8, 10, and 20 of the
Constitution guaranteed all couples equal protection and due process under law.
Articles 4,5 and 14 guaranteed all couples rights to "intimate and expressive association".
Yet the government restricted marriage licenses in the state as a special privilege only for
The case was heard on 2006-MAR-21, and ruled upon on 2006-JUN-12,. The
and appealed the case to the
Connecticut Supreme Court. 2 A hearing before the Supreme Court began on 2007-MAY-14.
The state Supreme Court ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on 2008-OCT-10 by a vote of
4 to 3. The majority agreed that both the existing marriage laws and civil union
laws discriminated against same-sex couples, and were thus unconstitutional.
Same-sex couples are to be allowed to marry. The ruling stated that the state's:
"... 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." 4
The ruling took effect on 2008-OCT-28, and cannot be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court. It perpetuated the misunderstanding that all same-sex spouses are
homosexual. In fact, some same-sex marriages are between a homosexual and
a bisexual; a few are between two bisexuals.
This was the first decision by a state supreme court to rule that civil unions
violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution.
The New York Times commented:
"Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court
language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice
for a new century -- recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred
interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and
relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities."
" 'Like these
once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a
more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional
protection,' Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3
decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of
societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power
compared with that of blacks and women. '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,' Justice Palmer declared.
'To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional
principles to gay persons and another to all others'."
"... 'Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal
rights under our law, they are by no means equal,' Justice Palmer wrote in the
majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and
Lubbie Harper. 'The former is an institution of transcendent historical,
cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not'." 6
In his dissent, Justice Peter Zarella said that the decision to expand the
definition of marriage to include same-sex couples can only be done by the
legislature. He wrote, in part:
"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman
has its basis in biology, not bigotry. 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." 4
The word "procreation" is ambiguous. Sometimes it is used to refer
to a man and a woman living together and conceiving a child who is genetically
theirs. Other times it is more general in tone and also includes cases where
infertile couples use in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc. to
conceive; it includes adopting babies, etc.
||Using the latter definition, Zarella's opinion seems to imply
incorrectly that same-sex couples cannot have babies. In fact, female
same-sex couples are in exactly the same position as an opposite-sex couple
in which the male is infertile. Both types of couples can normally conceive
through artificial insemination or other assisted reproduction techniques.
||Using the former definition, it is generally agreed that the state has
an interest in encouraging couples to have babies in order to prevent a drop
in population. However, to regulate exactly which couples should be allowed
to have children would seem to be a clear violation of the equal protection
clauses in the state Constitution.
Results of newspaper poll:
The Harford Courant newspaper conducted an online poll asking its readers "Do
you support same-sex couples' right to marry in Connecticut. By 2008-OCT-13:
||4.606 responses (71.1%) said yes.
||1.246 (19.2%) said no.
623 (9.6%) said that they did not support SSM but did support civil
Being an online poll these results do not necessarily represent opinion in
Connecticut as a whole.
The most popular stories on OCT-13 -- Monday morning following the Friday
decision by the Supreme Court -- did not include SSM! The most viewed stories
related to a student accident, death of a police officer, criticism of
Vice-President candidate Palin, a dispute in a restaurant, and an abandoned
toddler. People in the state seem to have accepted the cultural change and moved
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
Elizabeth Kerrigan et al, v. State of Connecticut," at:
"Connecticut Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law," Human Rights Campaign,
Stephanie Reitz, "Conn.'s civil unions law faces challenge," The
Guardian, 2007-MAY-14, at:
Mark Spencer, et al., "High court grants marriage rights for same-sex
couples," Hartford Courant, 2008-OCT-10, at:
"Same-sex Marriage in Connecticut?," Hartford Courant, 2008-OCT-13, at:
Robert D. McFadden, "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut," New York
Times, 2008-OCT-10, at:
Ken Dixon, "Rell signs gay marriage bill. Aligns statutes with court
ruling," The Stamford Advocate, 2009-APR-23, at:
"Gov. Rell Signs Gay Marriage Bill," The Hartford Courant, 2009-APR-23, at:
Susan Haigh, :Connecticut Assembly votes to redefine marriage," OneNewsNow,
Charlie Butts, "Conn. 4th state to legalize same-sex 'marriage'," One News
Now, 2009-APR-24. at:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ Social and religious conservatives often show the
word marriage in quotation marks when referring to same-sex marriage. This is to
indicate their rejection of SSM and equivalent to opposite-sex marriage.
Copyright 2007 to 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
First posted: 2007-MAY-14
Latest update: 2009-APR-24
Author: B.A. Robinson