CT Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Left To Legislature

[justin899]

Here we go again...

HARTFORD, Conn. --Gay and lesbian couples have not been harmed by the state's decision to legalize same-sex civil unions rather than grant them full marriage rights, a state Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling to the state's highest court.
*******************
"Civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law," Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman in New Haven wrote. "The Connecticut Constitution requires that there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process."
*******************
Jenkins Pittman, who noted how the legislature took "the courageous and historic step" of passing civil unions legislation, said lawmakers created an identical set of rights for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. She said the plaintiffs' claims that civil unions are a form of separate-but-equal segregation that aren't recognized in other jurisdictions don't rise to the "level of legal harm" required to rule in their favor.

She also dismissed claims that the term "civil unions" is inherently offensive.

"Though they argue that separate is never equal, they have been subjected to no tangible separation at all; and the court rejects the argument that the rhetorical separation of marriage versus civil union is enough to invoke an equal protection or due process analysis," the judge wrote.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/12/judge_rules_gay_couples_not_harmed_by_civil_unions_law/

What bullshit!

[Glorfindel]

1. Gee, didn't the California legislature pass a bill legalizing same-sex

marriage, which the "governor" vetoed, because he thought the subject should be left to the courts? You'd think the monsters would at least read from the same sheet of paper, wouldn't you?

[Creideiki]

2. As long as they get what they want...

logic doesn't matter.

[sui generis]

3. "no tangible separation"???

except that no other state recognizes it, and the federal government will put you in jail if you try to file as married.

Other than that, exactly the same.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. Uuummmm, this superior court judge should go back to

.

Uuummmm, this superior court judge should go back to law school. Since when is the word "marriage" and all its benefits, duties, obligations granted in law to only legally married couples merely a word with no legal meaning as to equal protection under our states constitutions? The federal constitution? Do these constitutions grant less due process to gays who cannot legally marry than to straights who can?

All those state laws, all those federal laws, and all those international laws grant benefits, duties, obligations to married couples, only. Unlike those who cannot be legally married. As a group, marrieds have more rights than do those who cannot achieve such married legal status, period. As individuals is that CT superior court judge saying that straights have more due process rights than do gays?

But getting back to the words of that CT state superior court judge, since when is "marriage" merely a term of "nomenclature" in that a "civil union" is equal? Ah, I find not. Legally, not, that is. "Separate but equal" does not have legal weight any longer if my SCOTUS case law is correct! Separate but equal is a stigma, a second class (or worse) status that paints (and taints) a Scarlet Letter across the wearer and the wearer's children and other family members. And, civil unions are not portable, state-to-state, country-to-country, and are void of federal protections, benefits, obligations, and duties as is marriage.

Is she saying that in order to benefit from the legal status of a "civil union" those (and their children) so granted a "civil union" (who cannot legally marry) must stay w/i the confines of Connecticut to "enjoy" such "equal" status as marrieds? They are prohibited from traveling, state-to-state, enjoying the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution? Is she joking?

Nah, that CT Superior Court judge needs law school training or a backbone. Maybe both.

For those curious about the words, "separate but equal," go here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=347&invol=483