HARTFORD, Conn. - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
"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 Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "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."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Associated Press - October 10, 2008
Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
So your implication is that if it's not in the Bible it's not good. Well autos ha e been a real problem but modern medicine has helped a lot of people live a lot longer than they would have without it.
Oh and I seem to remember somewhere in the Bible a man's daughters "comforted" him in a way that should never happen. I'm sure you don't advocate that.
I certainly wouldn't argue homosexual marriage is specifically encouraged, but it's also not discouraged, clearly not by Jesus. And if "God" took it seriously he'd surely have said something like "Oh, by the way son, while you're down there be sure to condemn homosexual marriage. That's a biggie." Didn't happen. Strange.
Cknuck,
Marriage is an institution that was used for contracts, selling the wife to get agreements, etc. Putting a religious spin on marriage, in my mind, really doesn’t matter. (my opinion).
Also, to say it’s not productive really isn’t a valid reason. There are many straight couples who can not have children so they’re not really productive, using your analogy.
What about old couple that are no longer producing children because of age. Do they need to be married as they’re no longer productive, if you use that same thought process.
To use “God” totally depends on whose God. I can’t imagine my Gods really caring if the marriage produces children. Is the marriage based on love, trust, integrity, honesty, etc. that’s more important in the relationship. As it currently stands, 50% of married couples or more, end up in divorce, so is, was, their marriage productive? Should laws be changed to prohibit divorce? I don’t think that any religion really has much to say in the matter. If an individual wants to have or put religion it the mix, fine, but others shouldn’t be bound to it because someone else believes it so. It doesn’t make it a fact or a truth.
Also, please don’t take the comments personally as they are not given with the intent of offending.
No offense taken Gwyddion9, my opinions on marriage is based on my Christian commitment my relationship with my God and the knowledge of His will based on scripture from the Holy Bible. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Here's something else, under the legal language some same sex marriage advocates use there is no provision for same sex marriage because it just has never been.
Yes some heterosexual couples do not have babies but under the design most can where as homosexuals would have to go outside of their union to have babies if they have not had operations that prohibit that function.
Now that marriage has been redefined, where should it stop, certainly group marriage is a consideration under the same sex line of thinking after all you break the rule for one then you should break it for all.
"my opinions on marriage is based on my Christian commitment my relationship with my God and the knowledge of His will based on scripture from the Holy Bible."
So are mine, ck; so are mine.
But if you'll bother to read this article, this was not a "religulous" decision. The courts have to do with what is just, and they are charged with ensuring all citizens are treated equally (something the Bible does not concern itself with very much, with One notable Exception).
"there is no provision for same sex marriage because it just has never been."
Where have you been these last seven years? On Mars? And why do you keep ignoring the several historical examples we've given you (ad nauseam) on many other threads?
"certainly group marriage is a consideration under the same sex line of thinking"
Please explain the logic in that. WE are talking about 2 people making a COMMITMENT to ONE another - namely, the person they love. Now, if you polygamists wnat to make a case for NOT making a commitment, go for it, but it has nothing to do with what WE are discussng.
"Yes some heterosexual couples do not have babies but under the design most can where as homosexuals would have to go outside of their union to have babies"
So, you make exceptions for your kind. No big surprise. Except, of course, makin' babies is NOT a requirement of marriage. "Just has never been" to borrow your phraseology.
To imagine I have not read the article is as short-sighted as to assume that the founders ever framed the laws in favor of homosexual unions or that it is a right for such a combination to marry. Marriage is designed for one man one woman on so many levels child bearing being one. And if you insist a homosexual relationship can be based on Biblical principles then please show me biblical scripture saying man should marry man or woman woman The only references in the Bible concerning these scenarios commit them as affronts to God or abominations or just plain sin.
To those who lack relationship with Jesus the law trumps but for followers of Jesus it is different. Never assume I have not read just because my answer is not the one you may want to read or hear.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.