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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted October 10, 2008 at 7:09 pm
EXCELLENT! It is explained well in the statement by Justice Palmer: “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
More states need to realize this and follow the examples of MA, CA, and now Conn.
posted October 11, 2008 at 9:58 am
Good for them!
posted October 11, 2008 at 11:09 am
As a child of the Constitution State, I am pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. It is certainly a surprise. But I hope the other state – including our current adoptive home – will learn and join in this issue of human rights. I only hope that the CT. Court decision does not become another of the fabled and infamous CT “Nutmegs” – a false representation – in the days to come. I am sure more lawsuits will follow. But as the Gov said, it is unlikely they will survive, so there is continued hope for this decision.
posted October 11, 2008 at 11:25 am
New England comes through again! Right is right, we are all equal under our Constitution in America.
posted October 11, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I’m with the Governor I disagree also marriage was created for opposite sexes not the same sex. It loses the meaning why would same sex have to marry they are already the same. Besides it is totally unproductive, totally God would not have designed it that way.
posted October 11, 2008 at 7:35 pm
cknuck your god wouldn’t have, their gods and lots of other people’s gods would have.
posted October 11, 2008 at 8:22 pm
cknuck, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.”
Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10
Ck, quote: Besides it is totally unproductive, totally God would not have designed it that way.
Listen up, from Ecclesiastes 8:17
“All the work of God…though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.”
And you haven’t found it either ck.
posted October 11, 2008 at 11:58 pm
H22: now find in the Bible where it says man should lay with man, or woman with woman; if you want to use the Bible to support homosexuality you’ll have to write your own.
posted October 12, 2008 at 8:47 am
Or find the place in the Bible that says people should communicate over long distances by telephones or computers. Or where it says men should use artificial hearts or even flu shots.
No, cknuck, if you start down that road you’ll soon be back in medieval times or worse and you wouldn’t like that any more than I would.
posted October 12, 2008 at 7:37 pm
nnmns Actually not, the Bible is very good for good moral values there are some people who could use it in their lives to stop their medieval ways in this modern world. I know people who actually got sick on the flu shots and artificial hearts are only for the rich, cars are poisoning our air, I’m not sure how much I would like a simpler cleaner time.
My point is that no way in the Bible for folk who would desire to use the Bible to support homosexuality can anyone find scripture that says people of the same sex should lay together, that’s just a fact.
posted October 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm
cknuck, the Bible was written when men had multiple wives, and had stories where men got to have sex with the “handmaiden” so they could reproduce if the wife was barren. Is this moral advice for today? Our laws prohibit more than one wife, but the Bible apparently said it’s OK. Why does the Bible have to say same gender sex is OK? Lots of things that happened in the Bible, ancient men fathering babies with old wives etc., makes for great stories, Noah’s Ark, yet another story to prove some point. They are just that, stories to illustrate points. (I don’t see the point in an old lady having a kid but then I suppose there was one).
What difference does it make to any heterosexual who someone marrys? It has absolutely no affect on anyone elses life but the 2 folks involved. Those who think it isn’t right can stick to that, but the law is supposed to grant equality to all, and denying homosexual couples the right to marry is not equality.
posted October 12, 2008 at 8:05 pm
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.
posted October 13, 2008 at 8:32 pm
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.
posted October 15, 2008 at 6:44 pm
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.
posted October 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“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.
posted October 27, 2008 at 6:29 pm
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.