Links to excerpts from the opinions of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, October 28, 2008, in which the Court purports to recognize and enunciates a right of homosexual couples to marry.
Majority Opinion, by Justice Palmer. Excerpt:
…our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. 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. 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.
First Dissent, by Justice Borden, joined by Justice Vertefeuille. Excerpt:
Thus, our experience with civil unions is simply too new and the views of the people of our state about it as a social institution are too much in flux to say with any certitude that the marriage statute must be struck down in order to vindicate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. ‘‘[J]udicial authority . . . is certainly not the only repository of wisdom. ‘When a democracy is in moral flux, courts may not have the best or the final answers. Judicial answers may be wrong. They may be counterproductive even if they are right. Courts do best by proceeding in a way that is catalytic rather than preclusive and that is closely attuned to the fact that courts are participants in the system of democratic deliberation.’ ’’ Baker v. State, supra, 170 Vt. 228, quoting C. Sunstein, ‘‘Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided,’’ 110 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 101 (1996). The majority has disregarded this wise counsel.
Second Dissent, by Justice Vertefeuille. Excerpt:
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the majority that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect classification for equal protection purposes under our state constitution and that our marriage statute barring same sex marriage therefore is subject to heightened or intermediate scrutiny.
Third Dissent, by Justice Zarella. Excerpt:
The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court. Therefore, I conclude that the equal protection provisions of the state constitution are not triggered. I further conclude that there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage. Accordingly, I dissent….
To end an institution that the plaintiffs contend is time honored and special by judicial fiat is a usurpation of the legislative prerogative and a violation of the fundamental right of the people, on which the very existence of our constitution is premised, ‘‘to define, secure and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors . . . .’’ Conn. Const., preamble.
