In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of gay marriage. In 2004, eight same-sex couples sued claiming that their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.
I think the majority's decision to use the word "segregation" is important and necessary. And something Barack Obama and Joe Biden should pay some attention.
From the ruling:
The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state’s statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does notembody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual
couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable
harm.
From one of the dissents:
. . . the majority’s decision to grant quasi-suspect class status to sexual orientation is contrary to a sound and prudent interpretation of constitutional standards regarding equal protection of the laws because it unduly minimizes the unique and extraordinary political power of gay persons in this state, both generally speaking, and particularly in regard to the question of whether gay marriage should be recognized in this state.
More good news: Arkansas to allow same-sex couples to care for foster children.
But a setback in Portugal.
More of the majority's opinion after the jump.
We also conclude that (1) our state
scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated
on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes
of the equal protection provisions of the United States
constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect
classification for purposes of the equal protection
provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject
to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)
the state has failed to provide sufficient justification
for excluding same sex couples from the institution of
marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s
disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally
deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny,
we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a
stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation
is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In
accordance with our conclusion that the statutory
scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons
on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with
direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.
0 comments
Post a Comment