Blumenthal: Out-of-state civil unions to be recognized (Ct.)

[paineinthearse]

The on-line headline on boston.com reads: "Conn. won't recognize Mass. same-sex marriages", with the synopsis reading "The state will only acknowledge civil unions and domestic partnerships from other states when a new law allowing civil unions takes effect on Oct. 1. (AP, 2:37 p.m.)

Interesting how a headline can slant coverage!

=====

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/09/20/blumenthal_out_of_state_civil_unions_to_be_recognized/

Blumenthal: Out-of-state civil unions to be recognized
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press Writer | September 20, 2005

HARTFORD, Conn. --Connecticut will recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships from other states but not same-sex marriages from neighboring Massachusetts when a new law allowing civil unions takes effect here Oct. 1. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday that Connecticut will not recognize same-sex marriages because the legislature has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"Civil unions performed in other states are entitled to full faith and credit in Connecticut, and cannot be repeated here. Out-of-state same-sex marriages have no legal force and effect here," Blumenthal wrote in a legal opinion requested by the state's Department of Public Health, which administers marriage licenses.

Those married, same-sex couples, however, will be able to enter into civil unions in Connecticut.

Currently, Vermont is the only state outside Connecticut that allows civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriages. Several states, including California, New Jersey and Maine, allow some form of same-sex domestic partnership.

[NewJeffCT]

1. good for him

he's a good attorney general and i'm glad we have him.

wish he'd run for governor, but i think he's too comfortable where he is.

[paineinthearse]

4. "wish he'd run for governor"

I'd prefer he ran for DINO Leiberman's Senate seat.

[NewJeffCT]

7. it would rock the boat too much here

most of our Democrats aren't too liberal and very few of our Republicans are very conservative.

it's mostly business as usual here.

[90-percent]

2. woo-hoo!

That's some good work from our generally good and righteous Democratic AG here in my home state.

This guy usually enforces the LAW, instead of political vendetta's and big corporate interests. If only America had more public servants like him...or like the NY AG, another generally good and just guy.

-85%

[AX10]

3. I voted for him!

I'd like to see him in the Governor's Mansion.

[closeupready]

5. Doesn't matter. CT is going to have to recognize out of state gay marriag

es, as long as they recognize hetero marriages. Violation of the 14th Amendment, and interstate commerce clause, at the least.

[Shipwack]

8. Normally, you would be correct, but unfortunately...

The supreme court ruled in 1967 that states don't have to necessarily recognize each other's marriage laws...
Loving vs. Virginia

Now, -maybe- that ruling won't apply in this case, because in "Loving", the law was ruled constitutional because it equally penalized both black and whites that were involved in an interracial marriage... whereas in this case, heterosexuals are -not- treated the same as homosexuals...

Then again, they'll probably argue that the law is fair because it equally prosecutes both gay men -and- gay women... :eyes:

[closeupready]

10. Interesting. I guess time will tell.

It just seems to me that CT recognizes hetero marriages from other states even when the terms and conditions sufficient in such other state is insufficient for purposes of seeking a marriage license in CT.

Therefore, if they recognize an "illegitimate" marriage from, say, Nevada, they have to recognize an "illegitimate" marriage from Massachusetts. Otherwise, they are violating the equal protection provision of the Constitution. And on that point, it seems indusputably clear that they are advantaging heteros over gays.

I'm not a lawyer, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm just curious if any lawyers here think that strategy would fly in court.

[paineinthearse]

11. Blumenthal's stragegy is brilliant

He is upholding his constitutional duty by interpreting the laws as written.

He is also opening the door to a court challenge by gay rights groups.

BRILLIANT! Rove couldn't have done better.

[Laughing Mirror]

6. So you will have to downgrade to second-class separate civil union status

if you are a gay couple from Massachusetts wanting to be all legal in Connecticut. How nice.

[paineinthearse]

9. I am glad someone else saw this angle

In essence, Blumenthal is supporting the concept of second class citizenship.

A true leader would have had the gonads to say he was supporting all marriages in all states.

[HockeyMom]

12. Court Case recently

The partner of a man, who had a Vermont Civil Union, tried to sue a NYC Hospital when his partner died. The hospital tried to get the case dismissed on the grounds that he had no standing, in that they were not "legally married". A judge in Manhattan ruled that under the equal protection clause, NY can recognize out of state Civil Unions, same as heterosexual marriages, and that the man had the right to sue the hospital.

My legalize is a bit "rusty", but it made the news last year. I am sure you can look it up. Sorry, I didn't not take down the case number. It was involving St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan, I believe. Anyone remember this?

[closeupready]

13. I do remember that case,

but not the details. Will have to look it up.