News Story

Printer Friendly

Gay marriage ban violates state constitution


Published: November 17, 2008

A state law prohibiting same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process under the state constitution – even though gay couples have the right to enter into civil unions, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled.

Eight same-sex couples sued Connecticut after they were denied marriage licenses, alleging that a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution.

The state contended that there was no constitutional violation because same-sex couples are permitted to enter into civil unions, which afford them the same legal rights as marriage.

But the court disagreed, explaining 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 not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm."

The court concluded 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."

Connecticut Supreme Court. Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, No. SC 17716. Oct. 28, 2008. Lawyers USA Nos. 993-87 (majority), 993-88 (dissent), 993-89 (dissent) and 993-90 (dissent). Click here for the majority opinion, click here for the first dissent, click here for the second dissent and click here for the third dissent.

Subscribe Now  or   Get 8 Weeks Free  
 

© Copyright 2009 Lawyers USA. All Rights Reserved.
 

POST A COMMENT

You must be a registered user to post comments. Click here to login.
Otherwise, please Subscribe Now or Get 8 Weeks Free.