The Big Question:
What was the rationale behind the Connecticut Supreme Court's October 2008 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage?
Relevant Constitutional Text:
Article 20 of the Connecticut State Constitution, known as the equal protection clause, reads as follows:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin.
Although not cited as definitive, article 1 is also relevant:
All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.
Relevant Law:
Section 14 of the Connecticut Civil Unions Act of 2005 ("An Act Concerning Civil Unions," Public Act #05-10), marriage "is defined as the union of one man and one woman." Prior to the act, Connecticut state law did not explicitly ban same-sex marriage but prohibited it as a matter of practice, requiring (for example) under 46b-25 that the Social Security numbers of the "bride and groom" be provided during the marriage license application process.
Defense of Law:
Opponents of same-sex marriage made three arguments against it:
- That the equal protection clause does not provide any protection on the basis of sexual orientation. (Previous state supreme court rulings have consistently held that any suspect or quasi-suspect class receives some protection under the equal protection clause.)
- That civil unions satisfy the equal protection clause.
- That same-sex couples are too different from heterosexual couples for marriage to be relevant.
The Verdict:
In a 4-3 ruling, the state supreme court held that the equal protection clause requires that the state not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in application of its marriage laws. In simple English, the ruling requires that same-sex marriage be legal in Connecticut.
Popularity:
According to a
Hartford Courant poll, most Connecticut residents (53%) support the ruling, with a vocal minority (42%) opposing it.
What Happens Next:
Under state law, the ruling will probably take effect on October 28th. Opponents of the ruling support a November 4th referendum--one automatically presented to the voters every 20 years--which, if approved, would require the state legislature to hold a constitutional convention. But the legislature is predominantly Democratic, and is unlikely to vote with the necessary two-thirds majority to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution even if the constitutional convention referendum passes. (It did in 1968; it didn't in 1988.)
