WASHINGTON — The Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday gave gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, ruling that civil unions relegate them to a “separate” and “inferior status” that falls short of full equality.
“We therefore agree with the plaintiffs that maintaining a second-class citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them from the institution of civil marriage” violates the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, the state high court said.
By a 4-3 vote, the state justices agreed with eight same-sex couples who sued after they were denied marriage licenses four years ago.
Connecticut now joins California and Massachusetts in authorizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples. In all three cases, the issue was decided in a 4-3 ruling by the state high court.
Other state high courts, although divided, have narrowly rejected same-sex marriage in the past two years, including those in New York, New Jersey, Washington and Maryland. In 27 states, judges cannot take up the matter because the states’ constitutions describe marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
So far, no state has authorized same-sex marriage through its legislation or by a popular vote. However, on Nov. 4, California’s voters will consider Proposition 8, which seeks to overturn the state court’s ruling in May that allowed such marriages.
Attorneys on both sides of California’s same-sex marriage ballot initiative said Friday that the Connecticut ruling has no legal significance for the Prop. 8 campaign because it was based on Connecticut’s state constitution.
They agreed, however, that a ruling in a third state that legalizes same-sex marriage has social significance.
The Connecticut ruling shows “that this is really an issue for the entire nation. It really does affect the entire nation,” said Andrew Pugno, a Sacramento attorney who is general counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign.
Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said he hopes the Connecticut ruling will help people see that the proposed ban in California is going against the evolution of opinion elsewhere in the nation.
“I hope it will have the effect that people will see that this really is something that is inevitable,” Minter said. “Other states are also recognizing that same-sex couples have a right to marry, that treating families differently is just fundamentally unfair and harmful to those families, and harmful to our whole society. That point came through so clearly in the Connecticut decision.”
In 2005, Connecticut’s lawmakers authorized civil unions for same-sex couples, and they proudly described the move as the first by a legislature not working under a court mandate. (Earlier, California lawmakers had authorized “domestic partnerships” for gay or lesbian couples.)
But in Friday’s opinion, the state justices compared those civil unions to the discredited doctrine of “separate but equal” that was used to justify racial segregation in the South prior to 1954.
from Gay marriage upheld in Connecticut by state high court from the San Jose Mercury News
retrieved 10-10-2008 @ 22:10
And thus the world turns.
The third state in a row has upheld the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry and have the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple — which I’ve learned recently are 1,138 legal benefits, as opposed to a fraction of that with civil unions. Though, of course, like both other states, it was a 4-3 vote. You can tell it’s a big issue if they’ve been down to a splitting vote like that, even in the “mecca” state of California. My own home state of Maryland denied marriage rights by a 3-4 vote; just goes to show you how close things are.
I still find it kind of ironic that the current legal definition of marriage, at least dictated by federal (yes, federal) law is the union between a man and a woman, and that definition is actually included in many state’s constitutions. California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are some of the few that don’t have that distinction in their state constitutions. It really makes wonder that if current opinion is really swinging towards upholding marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples if those states that do have that definition in their constitutions will call for an amendment to them. It’s certainly something to think about.
The report is right to talk about the “separate but equal” doctrine — because that’s exactly what denying gay and lesbian couples marriage rights is: giving them an equal option, but keeping it separate. … which really isn’t true at all, because civil unions are absolutely nothing like legal marriage. Look up the rights each gives you: the latter certainly has much more to it than the former. And thus the two are not equal. Same thing happened before the Civil Rights Movement (and just might happen again if things keep continuing): the “separate but equal” doctrine was used to separate white and black facilities, but the latter’s areas were always much worse (either in construction, upkeep, or simple cleanliness, especially in terms of the bathrooms) than the former’s. Certainly not equal.
The doctrine of “separate but equal” has been more than disproved as being an appropriate and ethical way to run things. Then why do people, politicians, and governments still practice it?
