connecticut court rules in favor of gay marriage

[Amby 490]

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.

The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters.

The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.

"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.

"I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jodi Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.

In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.

"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," Palmer wrote.

The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.

"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."

Attorney General Richard Blumethal said the ruling will go into effect on Oct. 28, when it is implemented by action of the Superior Court. There will be no appeal, he said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," said Rell, a Republican. "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."

But House Speaker Jim Amann, a Democrat, said he expects the issue to be taken up by the General Assembly.

"The legislature, as the lawmaking branch of government, debated this issue and made Connecticut one of the few states that offers civil union status for same-sex couples," Amann said.

The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.

Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."

Zarella added, "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."

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.

Supreme courts in Massachusetts and California also have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, concluding the domestic partnerships were unequal to the rights given in heterosexual marriage.

Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.

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."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435881,00.html

[MissStacey 1]

Yay!!

[LaL 418]

[almaty 19]

alright...conn..!

[IAMX 3,055]

Good for them. As Gavin Newsom said, it's inevitable.

Then we can move on to more important things. There shouldn't have been such a fight to ban gays from their right of marriage and equal protection they are owed. Yet here we are.

Good thing we have somewhat of a working judiciary to protect gays from the tyranny of the majority, when there's no other branch that will.

[Jenn! 918]

[MrsCat 6]

[Jenn! 918]

Good thing we have somewhat of a working judiciary to protect gays from the tyranny

LOL, I read that as "tranny".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good for them.

Here in Cali, I'm seeing a lot of bumper stickers that say "Yes on 8: Marriage Protection Act."

It's pretty interesting to read the arguments For and Against Proposition 8 which defines marriage between only a man and a woman.

.....

In Favor of Proposition 8:

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits" as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

.....

Against Proposition 8:

OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION--the law of our land--SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE--NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That's what this election is about--equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.

Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

That's why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech.

PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That's just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don't need Prop. 8; WE DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.

When you're married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/

[IAMX 3,055]

Good thing we have somewhat of a working judiciary to protect gays from the tyranny

LOL, I read that as "tranny".

Is there something you need to tell us?

[almaty 19]

waiitng for the haters..religious right and the self righteous to start posting sh!t

[IAMX 3,055]

waiitng for the haters..religious right and the self righteous to start posting sh!t

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Slouching towards Gomorrah?

[IAMX 3,055]

Slouching towards Gomorrah?

It would give Pat Robertson yet another reason to point to any disaster that happens upon the gays.

Fvcking gays ruining everything!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Come to MA where it's legal to marry barnyard animals.