|
from Parenting & Family
Court Rules On Same-Sex Marriage
In Connecticut
By William Duncan, NARTH Legal Committee Chairman
July 13, 2006 - KERRIGAN V. CONNECTICUT, NNH CV 04 4001813
Connecticut New Haven Superior Court.
Eight same-sex couples sued challenging the state's marriage law. While the
suit was pending, the Connecticut legislature "took the courageous and historic
step" of creating a civil union status whereby same-sex couples can have the
same benefits afforded by marriage. Plaintiffs, however, complained that the
civil union status was inferior to marriage and thus unconstitutional.
The court noted that the civil union law creates "an identical set of legal rights in Connecticut for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples." (In a note, the court pointed out that the marriage and civil union laws do not create a sexual orientation classification because homosexuals and heterosexuals can contract either.) Under the new law, there are no benefits available to married couples that are not also available to same-sex couples in civil unions.
Responding to plaintiffs' arguments about the problems with civil unions, the court held that the constitution is concerned with the "underlying rights, benefits and responsibilities" or marriage not "the nomenclature that is used to define those rights." The court also held that with the civil union status, Connecticut law "cannot any longer be reasonably read to prefer one status over the other" so civil unions don't create a second-class status. The court did not believe the use of marriage as a reference point for defining civil unions had any legal significance and that the offensiveness of the term to same-sex couples is too subjective to justify a finding of unconstitutionality. Similarly, a mere difference in nomenclature does not create a constitutional problem unless it has a tangible effect and here there is none. The court said that the fact that plaintiffs may have to explain their new status to others is also not a constitutional harm. The court did hold that the fact that plaintiffs' cannot gain recognition of their status in other states is a concrete harm but not one cause by Connecticut law.
In concluding the court said that the judiciary "ought not to be dissuaded from its duty by deferring to the legislature's use of unprovable stereotypes in the guise of a 'rational basis' for the legislation" but here "it would be the elevation of form over substance to hold unconstitutional Connecticut's current statutory scheme based on the challenge of these plaintiffs, who are entitled to the identical rights and identical treatment as opposite sex married persons in Connecticut."
Additional Reading:
Parenting and Family.
Updated: 2 September 2008
|
