Conn. High Court rules same-sex couples can marry

[Phantom]

Hi ladies and Gents. I was looking at email earlier and came across this news report today: Check it out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/...e_sex_marriage

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

ADVERTISEMENT


The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"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.

"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.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "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."

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.

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."

___

Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.


I must say, I'm overjoyed...BEYOND overjoyed that Conn. has ruled in the favor of same sex couples. This makes the 3rd state I believe to officalize same sex marriage. My hope is that one day, all states will allow Same sex unions, but for now this will do. This is just another small but bold giant step up for same sex couples. No one has to right to strip away their rights, everyone should be allowed to marry if their trully in love.

Throughts everyone? Discuss.

EDIT:
And if a Flamewar breaks out, I'll report and hopefully won't have to ask that the thread be closed.

[Sasquatch]

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "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."

I like this.

"I disagree, and most of the state disagrees, but it's too much of a pain in the ass to try to reverse, so I guess we'll just let it go."

Congratulations for homosexuals in Connecticut. As long as they only get state funding and not federal, I'm fine. Because I'm not in Connecticut, and I won't have more money taken out of my paycheck for them.

[Pete]

I still don't see the difference between a civil union and a marriage when it comes to this. Either way, benefits are shared and the fact is recognized that the two people are by all means together. So long as homosexuals in civil unions are open to the same benefits and pitfalls that married straight couples are, then I don't have a problem. Once you start offering special rights for different groups, you might as well throw the constitution out the window.

They're pretty much the same thing, aside from the fact that a "marriage" is supposed to be between a man and a woman, as it is seen in the eyes of the Church. In short, I'm all for civil unions for human beings of any sexual preference, but a marriage is between a man and a woman. Oh and the only reason I say human beings is because I'm not down with the whole interspecies thing. Sorry Alabama.

To me a marriage is something of a religious experience. In fact it's one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. I'm kind of a bare bones traditionalist when it comes to this stuff.

[Jin]

If they called civil unions "marriage" this whole thing could be avoided.

Forcing priests to marry gay couples is stupid, but so is not recognizing that marriage existed before Christianity did. Like Pete said, as long as they gain the same rights as those married by church officials there's no problem. If this is all about names, then just call the damn thing marriage and be done with it. I'm really tired of this being an issue.