SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CONNECTICUT: KERRIGAN V. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH
More to follow…Justice Palmer writes for the majority.
Finished skimming Justice Palmer’s opinion and it is compelling.
Justices Palmer, Norcott, Katz, and Harper in the majority.
Three dissenting opinions (Justice Borden joined by Justice Vertefuille, Justice Vertefuille, and Justice Zarella).
Some highlights:
Especially in light of the long and undisputed history of invidious discrimination that gay persons have suffered.. we cannot discount the plaintiffs’ assertion that the legislature, in establishing a statutory scheme consigning same sex couples to civil unions, has relegated them to an inferior status, in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage.
Something in a name:
Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.
Juctice Palmer’s opinion examines the history of discrimination against gay persons:
In sum, the relatively modest political influence that gay persons possess is insufficient to rectify the invidious discrimination to which they have been subjected for so long.
Seperate is not equal:
Accordingly, under the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, our statutory scheme governing marriage cannot stand insofar as it bars same sex couples from marrying.
Conclusion:
To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.
Please share your thoughts on the Court’s ruling today by commenting below.
Oh and while you’re watching the Red Sox game tonight, make sure to check A Public Defender for his take on Kerrigan.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Amazing. I couldn’t be more proud of our Supreme Court and its courage to say, quite simply, that “equal protection means equal protection.” I’m still reading the opinion, but it’s remarkable.
[Reply]
October 10th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I have a long post coming later this evening, but for now: “Yay!”
[Reply]
October 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
What’s striking about the opinion is that it is very moving.
I’m going to need sometime to digest everything and will probably dedicate all of my posts next week to the opinion.
None of this would have been possible without Justice O’Connor in Lawrence v. Texas.
[Reply]
October 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Justice Palmer wrote the opinion, not Justice Borden. Borden wrote a dissent.
[Reply]
October 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
[...] A CT Law Blog [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 6:01 am
I think this same-sex marriage is purely political in nature and in my opinion, approving this bill does not really lean on the real essence of gay marriages. It is as if like: "Okay, I'll give you a piece of chocolate, even though you are diabetic, as long as you will vote for me and I'll pass a bill that guarantees free medical assistance 100% for diabetic patients like you and even a 100% burial assistance if ever you die from diabetes complications…"
[Reply]
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
kurye courierss
[Reply]