Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right Under CT Constitution

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Connecticut Supreme Court today joined the highest courts in Massachusetts and California in deciding that their state constitutions prohibit a legislative ban on same-sex marriages.

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 the equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.

While the decision (pdf) may energize the religiously intolerant branch of the right wing, it won't be of much help to John McCain, who has never been a point man for his party's anti-gay faction. Expect to hear considerable whining about "activist" judges -- the ones who actively support the constitutional value of equal protection -- but expect to hear an even louder celebration of this important victory for human rights.

< Friday Open Thread | Deconstructing the Republican Meltdown >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right Under CT Constitution | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Thank you CT Supreme Court (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:19:20 PM EST

Great news (none / 0) (#2)
by rilkefan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST

Shile Obama isn't quite where I'd like him to be on this issue, at least in public, he's well away from McCain, so from that perspective it would help McCain among those who care - but they're voting for him anyway. Also, it's a small state, who's going to get riled up if they weren't riled by CA?

While, shile, let's call the whole thing off n/t (none / 0) (#4)
by rilkefan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST

How will Obama respond to the (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST

Connecticut Supreme Court decision?


He won't (none / 0) (#10)
by mmc9431 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST

I don't expect Obama to advance gay rights. He's much too cautious of a politician to risk any capital on this issue. At least with him they won't get eroded.


he's not denouncing it either (none / 0) (#31)
by Iris on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST

which is an improvement over what we've had the last 8 years, even if I wish he would go further.


: Obama has responded...with actions (none / 0) (#38)
by mexboy on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST

Obama pays lip service to the civil rights of gay Americans, but his actions send a much different and stronger message.
I'm talking about his faith tours with anti-gay Douglas Kmiec and Donnie McClurkin.
If he really supported rights for gay citizens he wouldn't give a forum to the vitriol of such haters.
This is my opinion.

The California Supreme Court overturned (none / 0) (#3)
by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST

a citizen's initiative of a few years back that banned same-sex marriage. At the time it won by a rather wide margin. So the same people came back to place it in the state constitution. Fortunately it is losing by a good margin and should not become a law. There is also a 3rd attempt by the right-to-life people to place an amendment into the constitution to require parental notification for an underage abortion. This measure avoids some of the pitfalls of their previous attempts like requiring parental signatures. What it does instead is require that someone in the family (almost anyone) be notified, peiod. That is designed to create family harmony I am sure. snark But the record keeping is very heavy handed. Every election these supporters seem to find a conservative social issue to put on the ballot to assure their base turnout.

See the post at Digby's (none / 0) (#5)
by rilkefan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST

here for a less sanguine view.


I'm sorry to hear that the well (none / 0) (#34)
by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST

heeled Mormons are doing this. They were one of the biggest fighters against the ERA 40 years ago. When Californians were polled a few years ago the majority were not in favor of marriage for same sex couples. There has been a change in attitudes, but I don't know if has hit the tipping point. However, making this a constitutional amendment is a big step.


A friend is in California (none / 0) (#36)
by caseyOR on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST

now working on the NO on 8 campaign. She told me the Mormon Church has raised 40% of the money for the YES on 8 group. They raised about $25 million. That is a lot of advertising going out over the airwaves.

I know times are tough and money's tight, but if you can spare a fiver or maybe a tenspot, please donate to the NO on 8 campaign. Losing would certainly set things way back in California. But the loss would only embolden groups like the Mormon Church to continue their campaigns of hate.


: You will be happy to know that in the East Bay (none / 0) (#40)
by hairspray on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:05:25 AM EST

at least, there have been some pretty good ads for the NO on 8 campaign. One is an older couple speaking on behalf of their daughter and another one is of two women talking about whether or not feeling uncomfortable is enough to deny some common decency to same sex couples. They are on often enough to have an impact. I have not seen any ugly ones here, although Orange county is another story.

I'm in California and have a legal question (none / 0) (#13)
by JWeidner on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:14:06 PM EST

about Proposition 8 - As I'm sure most people here know, this is the California proposition that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. My question is this - if this measure does pass, does that mean this just gets shuffled off to the courts again?

I'm assuming that's the case, but I'm no lawyer. I just consider that the people of California could pass a proposition to amend the state constitution and legalize slavery - but that wouldn't mean the courts couldn't step in and overturn such an amendment.

Thanks for any insight.


I think successful propositions (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST

getting shuffled off to court is a long-standing and honorable tradition here in the land of fruits and nuts...


: uh, yeah, what caseyOR said below... (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST

I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#16)
by caseyOR on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:28:40 PM EST

but, it is my understanding that if Prop. 8 passes, same-sex marriage will be outlawed in California. No further recourse to the courts.

This differs from your slavery example. As I understand it, states can expand rights beyond those provided for in the US Constitution. They cannot contract rights. The federal law pretty much bans slavery. So, California cannot reinstitute it. There is no federal protection for same-sex marriage. States can do what they want. And once it is in the state constitution, it can only be overturned by amending the constitution again.

In the past few years many states have constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. Short of a major and unlikely move by the federal government, and I mean Congress, these battles will have to be fought state-by-state. This fight will be a many years long slog.

So, yeah for the Nutmeg State. But I hesitate to see this as a major shift in thinking nationwide..


Thanks for the response (none / 0) (#21)
by JWeidner on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST

Disappointing that so many out-of-staters are going to be influencing this particular Proposition. Anyone know if there is any polling showing how this is currently playing out? Last I had heard was that there had been a shift away from voting against Prop. 8 and that voters now were favoring the Proposition.


: One important reason that Prop 8 needs to (none / 0) (#35)
by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST

lose is because once it is in the constitution it becomes extremely difficult to get it out of there. Atttudes change, but the constitution, that is another matter.

That's a very optimistic view (none / 0) (#37)
by mexboy on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:03:47 PM EST

I live in California and the religious right wing is airing very compelling fear mongering ads.
They are saying schools will be forced to teach children about gay marriage if they don't stop it with proposition 8.

protect the family or something like that is their tag line. I have an uneasy feeling this will pass.

Equal rights should never be put up to a popular vote.


I approve (none / 0) (#7)
by bocajeff on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST

of the ruling, however it does not go far enough. There are other "minorities" that don't get protection from marital bigotry. I'm not kidding here but I believe in polygamy, incestual marriage, and any other method of people wishing to live their lives in freedom apart from the government telling them what is right and what is wrong.

You can't be a little bit free...

There is certainly some refreshing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST

logic and consistency in that position.

I think in general, though, we humans want the gvt or some other higher power to outlaw things that are wrong, and support things that are right.

The rub is defining what's wrong or right. It seems they're all matters of degrees...


I often wonder (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST

when I'm old and grey, what socially liberal cause will cause me to sit up in my rocking chair and say "wait, you guys are going too far with this one."


the rub is defining what's wrong or right (none / 0) (#19)
by of1000Kings on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:46:12 PM EST

unfortunately for America what's right is usually decided by the christian right, just as with drugs...

free is free, give us our drugs...right guys?


: Christian right, (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST

progressive left, libertarian, whatever belief system floats your boat I guess.

: Amen...but I already have my drugs... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST

don't need anyone to give me any...just don't slap me in cuffs over it...pretty please:)

What a rub it is.... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:44:03 PM EST

since my right as rain could be the next guys worst thing since polio.

We should want the government to outlaw behavior that victimizes or causes direct harm to another..."right and wrong" is just too damn subjective.


Well, (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST

the gvt takes my, and your, money on threat of physical incarceration every single day of our lives. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as victimizing us and causing us direct harm.


: Taxation.... (none / 0) (#41)
by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST

I guess you could call it the original sin of modern civilization.

lol (none / 0) (#18)
by of1000Kings on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST

the slippery slope slathered in sarcasm...

gotta love these bigots...


I don't know.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:46:31 PM EST

maybe your just bigoted against polygamists 1000kings:) I thought it was a fair point.

Who needs the government to define our private relationships anyways? Instead of getting the govt. into gay marriage, we should get them out of the hetero version....the state need not have anything to do with it.


: I understand the point (none / 0) (#30)
by of1000Kings on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST

I just didn't like the way it was put forth...
I would think that polygamists would have some defense under the constitutional right that the government shall not make laws regarding religion...
but that's obviously been said before, and been put down by the courts...
I think all we know is that we haven't quite figured out how to govern 300+M people under one ideology, which is something that's trying to be done...and that what we know about governing is a fraction of what we need to know...
how do you balance what is personal good and what is common good...
I adhere to the philosophy that as long as what I do doesn't effect others DIRECTLY then it's okay, but even that isn't clear cut according to a lot of people..
the problem is that many people are just satisfied with the status quo, and they don't care to know what we don't know...
incurious seems to be the hot word for the week...

This already exists (none / 0) (#22)
by toujoursdan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST

in part, in the Australian state of Tasmania. You have the ability to designate any person - opposite sex, same sex, sibling, parent, grandparent, whatever, as your domestic partner and get all the benefits that a married couple gets.

This allows a child who takes care of an elderly parent to have control over "family" decisions, property, etc. as well as tax benefits. It seems to work pretty well. It detaches the social contract from an expectation of sex.

Polygamy is problematic because of our modern social benefits - medical insurance, tax credits, and other spousal benefits, are predicated on monogamy. If you have 3 wives and 6 children drawing corporate benefits off of one productive worker, than the worker costs a company more than he produces and becomes a net drain for a company or for society. Making polygamy legal would cost everyone much more in extra taxes and in the prices of goods and services to pay for the social benefits of extra spouses.


That's easy to fix.... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST

put a cap on the number of dependents who can claim your benefits.

You'd still be free to have 7 spouses and 47 kids if it floats your boat...you just can't expect other free people to pay for them.


: Then what's the point? (none / 0) (#39)
by toujoursdan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 06:51:15 PM EST

That would be a disaster in the making. You could insure 6 kids but not the 7th or insure the 1st wife but not the 2nd or third?. Wife #2 gets sick and the husband can't use insurance for her care?
Then what is the point of legal polygamy anyway? You can already shack up and form relationships with multiple partners and even have kids by them, you commit an illegal act when you seek the tax, corporate and other benefits by trying to legally marry. The issue isn't how many people you sleep with but trying to claim them for legal purposes.
Besides, polygamy is a voluntary decision, sexual orientation according to mainstream psychology is innate.

No joking myself... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST

polygamy, even incest (yuck) between consenting adults should not be crimes...absolutely.

Freedom can be downright unpleasant at times...still beats the alternative.


: polygamy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Iris on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST

all I have to say about this is that rarely do you see women wanting to have more than one husband, almost invariably it's a man having multiple subservient wives. In other words it's not about liberating individuals necessarily as imprisoning women. That's my view at least.

: at any rate same-sex marriage and poly/inc (none / 0) (#33)
by Iris on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:36:47 PM EST

are not the same thing. We shouldn't be denying people the right to choose one consenting adult to be their life partner, regardless of what private parts they have. Prohibitions on incest have a genetic basis; you need look no further than the "blue people" of Kentucky.

Only 47 more states to go... (none / 0) (#8)
by Lil on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST

but I am encouraged. Hope I live to see the day when all of the USA is treated as one.

Welcome to the party CT! (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:22:28 PM EST

Although they may end up stealing all of our gay tourism/wedding money from NY. Still this is great news. Now just 47 more to go...