Connecticut Supreme Court Overturns State Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage, making Connecticut the third state in the Union to allow same-sex marriage.

In a 4-3 decision, the Court held the state’s current marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples:

"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.”

Importantly (as of today, more so than yesterday) there is an initiative on the Connecticut November ballot calling for a Connecticut constitutional convention. With the new court decision, the only way same-sex marriage could now be overturned in Connecticut would be through constitutional amendment. A convention would give opponents to same-sex marriage a venue for such an amendment.

Looks like Connecticut voters have a new and important choice on the ballot in November. The choice to vote for or against a new state constitutional convention now takes on a whole new meaning.

Comments

[Sargon Bighorn]

It's not "Gay Marriage" it's not "Same-sex Marriage" it's marriage plain, simple, and equal to any other marriage. America is about equality.

[Paul]

For a nation of individuals that cannot stand being told what we can and cannot do. Or how we can or cannot do something, we sure seem to think it is okay to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

[Chuck]

This wonderful news and we have every reason to celebrate.

Not to be a wet blanket, however, I am wondering just how long it will be before the fundies, Mormons and other religious busy bodies get together to form another Proposition to overturn this Supreme Court Ruling as they are doing in California with Proposition 8?

Another question that occurs to me is, if the Supreme Court is so Supreme, how come everything they decree is so easily turned over and turned into a voting issue?

That is to say, what would stop any group of people from putting together a Proposition to overturn the right of women to vote or rescind civil rights (including the right to marry a white person) for black people...not that I would advocate either, God forbid.

It's just puzzling to me that civil rights for women and blacks are respected by the voting populace at large (I'm sure that there are those who would like to see such a thing occur, however), while the civil-rights of the LGBT community are not?

Would someone please tell me what the difference is?

And please, don't hold the bible up as 'proof' that God does not approve of homosexuals. It also had a lot of negative stuff to say about women....and it being okay to own slaves. So, that's a wash.

[Sargon Bighorn]

Good question Chuck. I think it happens because Gay-Americans are a very small minority. The Religious Right still holds great power and money in America. And every nation needs a dark evil enemy to rally the populace. So when Gay-Americans gain a civil right, there are those that work hard to take it away, because you can't have the enemy win they say. Being less than 1% of the population, we don't stand a chance of winning any election on our own. Some states can not change their constitution by initiative process. It takes an act of that states legislator. Such a state is Massachusetts and hence marriage equality still is extended to all citizens. That's my understanding of the political situation. I think the most profound political act Gay-Americans can take now is to Come Out of the Closet.

[Fly]

To hell with that fucking BS about the bible and god and all that religious ramble. Those assholes who refer to the bible or how "god" hates homosexuals should go and live in Saudi Arabia or Iran - not in the United States of America. We are still a secular state, aren't we?
The religious right in this country needs a serious kick in their butt.

[George]

I'm not going to lie, I really don't care. If I'm with someone and really love them, I don't need a certificate to prove it.

[Marlin Bynum]

Chuck,

Your questions are about the power of democracy. In the United States we constantly battle the issues of the rights of one individual (or in this unique case -- two individuals) to exercise an "inaliable right."

If you study your history the right of women to vote, and the right of African-Americans to fully participate in our society, and even the right of interacial marrige have had to go through tumultious events where their legal rights were not always respected, and people in power continued, illegally to oprress them.

African American rights are a great example. In the mid-1860's the United States Constitution was amended to give all African American men the right to vote (not not the women, that would come later). But after the period or Reconstruction in the south, many of those rights were "taken away" throught Jim Crow laws. It took Rosa Parks saying no to a bus driver to begin a movement that ultimately ended up in the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch of this government to enforce the laws that actually were already on the books.

It is a constant struggle to decide what is best for a country and people. While I personally see a day not too far in the future, where gay and lesbian Americans will be able to legally marry, I don't believe it will come easily. What will have to happen is probably what happened in the Loving v. Virginia case. A gay couple that don't mind becoming scrutinized in every detail of their life will have to go to a state where it is legal to get married, then go back to a state where it is illegal, then sue for recognition (much like what happened in Isreal only recently) so that it will have to make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Since the Constitution of the United States says that what a contract in one state will have to be respected by others states we can only hope that the Supreme court will realize that this marriage contract has to be honored by the second state. Which will ironically lead to the recognition by the United States federal government and then all rights can be brought to all equally.

It is a crazy way of governing, but has proven, over time to help us all find equality. Remember it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal in my states (Texas) to have sex with a man. I could actually be arrested for having sex, in my bedroom with a male partner. But just a few years ago (2003) the Supreme Court of the United States, after the Supreme Court of Texas diagreed, based on a previous U.S. Supreme Court decision, that gay male sex could be outlawed.

So keep working for a more open court and executive and legislative branch. It may be sooner than we think when all men and women or those who are intersexed or transgendered will be treated equally by the law.

Later,

Marlin

[luigee]

Sargon Bighorn,

gays are not less than 1% of the population. The lowest estimate is about 3% to as high as 10% depending on the study/survey. I personally believe the actual number is closer to the higher percentage if people are allowed to be who they truly are...

[Mario]

Wow! Gay marriage in a state already legalized gay civil unions with 100% of the same benefits as straight couples, and still 90% of the comments on here are a bunch of whining, bellyaching, debbie downers who just seem to wallow in self pity and being a victim. People like that are more the problem than anything! This is good news, celebrate it, you worthless idiots!

[Ralph]

To Mario & George,

Bravo!!!!!!!!

Finally someone to agree with! Been stating these things for so long, but ignored all the same. Do you drop the "gay" card as many of the others?

[sedaKarriashy]

Was ist das?

[corrective_unconscious]

>It's just puzzling to me that civil rights for women and blacks are respected by the voting populace at large (I'm sure that there are those who would like to see such a thing occur, however), while the civil-rights of the LGBT community are not?

Actually, insane, sexually conflicted Kenneth Starr said before the CA Supreme Court in the recent Prop 8 arguments that the people of California could take away rights from other groups or minorities. In his view, it's simply a matter of majority rules. And he'll "go down" in history as even more of an absurd figure because of his latest inanity, following on the heels of the Clinton-Lewinsky stuff as it does.