Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

Last updated

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
Court Connecticut Supreme Court
Full case name Elizabeth Kerrigan et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health et. al.
ArguedMay 14, 2007
DecidedOctober 10, 2008
Citation 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, (Conn 2007)
Holding
Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.
Court membership
Judges sitting Chase T. Rogers (recused), [lower-alpha 1] David M. Borden, Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., Richard N. Palmer, Christine S. Vertefeuille, Peter T. Zarella, Lubbie Harper Jr. (assigned to participate)
Case opinions
MajorityPalmer, joined by Harper, Katz, Norcott
DissentBorden
DissentVertefeuille
DissentZarella
Rogers took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Conn. Consti. Article first, § 1, § 8, § 10, § 20, General Statutes § 46b-38nn

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, is a 2008 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court holding that allowing same-sex couples to form same-sex unions but not marriages violates the Connecticut Constitution. It was the third time that a ruling by the highest court of a U.S. state legalized same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and California in In re Marriage Cases (2008). The decision legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut when it came into effect on November 12, 2008. There were no attempts made to amend the state constitution to overrule the decision, and gender-neutral marriage statutes were passed into law in 2009.

Contents

Background

Connecticut had a relatively liberal record on the question of rights for gays and lesbians. It had repealed its law criminalizing consensual sodomy in 1969, banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1991, and authorized second-parent adoptions in 2000. [2]

In response to an inquiry from officials of two Connecticut towns asking whether they could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote on May 17, 2004, the day that same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts: [2]

I have concluded that the Connecticut Legislature has not authorized the issuance of a Connecticut marriage license to a same-sex couple.... I can reach no conclusion on whether a Connecticut court would hold that limiting the status of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates constitutional standards. Ultimately, the courts will have the final say.... [O]ur marriage statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality.

Lawsuit

On August 25, 2004, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit, led by attorney Bennett Klein, on behalf of seven (later eight) Connecticut same-sex couples in State Superior Court, challenging the state's denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples. All had been denied marriage licenses in Madison and several were raising children. [lower-alpha 2] They argued that this violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution. [4] Attorney General Blumenthal said: "The question is whether there's a denial of equal protection of the law. My job is to defend the statutes whether I like them or not, and we do that as vigorously and as zealously as we can." [5] The Family Institute of Connecticut asked to be allowed to intervene to defend the suit, but Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman denied that request and her decision was upheld on appeal. [6]

In October 2005, the Connecticut civil unions statute took effect. It was designed to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, but it made explicit for the first time in Connecticut that marriage was the union of a man and a woman. The plaintiffs filed an amendment complaint focusing on the distinction between marriage and civil unions. [2]

The court heard oral argument on March 21, 2006. [5] On July 12, 2006, Judge Pittman ruled against the plaintiffs. She called the state's recent establishment of civil unions "courageous and historic". She found no meaningful distinction between marriages and civil unions except for the provision of benefits by the federal government, which did not implicate the state. She wrote: [2]

Civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law. ... 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.

She noted that "the plaintiffs may feel themselves to be relegated to a second class status, [but] there is nothing in the text of the Connecticut statutes that can be read to place the plaintiffs there." [7] She also described the court's "very limited authority to interfere with the determination of the General Assembly", i.e., the legislature, which she called "the arbiter of public policy". [2]

Decision

The Supreme Court of Connecticut heard the appeal by the plaintiffs on May 14, 2007. Jane R. Rosenberg, representing the Attorney General, told the Court: "We're not talking about granting rights and benefits; we're talking about a word." Bennett Klein, representing the plaintiffs, called civil unions "a less prestigious, less advantageous, institution". When Klein argued that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right and guaranteed by the state constitution's ban on sex-based discrimination, Justice David M. Borden told him he was "riding two horses". Much of the argument concerned whether the Court needed to treat sexual orientation as a "suspect class", a category that would require the state to meet a higher standard for treating them as a class apart. Part of that argument addressed whether gays and lesbians can be termed "politically powerless". When Rosenberg pointed to their recent "significant advances" and suggested the trend would continue, Justice Richard N. Palmer asked: "Is that your argument—give them more time and they'll do better?" The Justices also referenced recent activity in the legislature, where a week earlier the judiciary committee had endorsed same-sex marriage by a vote of 27–15, surprising legislators who then prevailed upon the bill's sponsors to delay its consideration. [8]

The Court issued its opinion on October 10, 2008. [9] The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution. [10]

Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper Jr. (who replaced the recused Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers). The Court found a substantial difference between marriages and civil unions: [3] [11]

Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal. The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not....

There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage. Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.

The ruling was scheduled to take effect on October 28. [11] It was the first ruling by a state's highest court that found allowing same-sex couples their own marriage-like status, in this case civil unions, failing to meet the state constitution's equal protection standard. At the time, three states had civil unions (Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey) and four had domestic partnerships (Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii). [11]

Justices David M. Borden, Christine S. Vertefeuille, and Peter T. Zarella each field a dissent. Borden wrote that civil unions deserved more time: "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". [3] Zarella found procreation a sufficient rationale for restricting marriage to different-sex couples: "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. The fact that same sex couples cannot engage in sexual conduct of a type that can result in the birth of a child is a critical difference in this context." [3] [11]

Governor Jodi Rell said that she would enforce the decision even though she disagreed with it. She said: "The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success." Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, called the judges "robed masters" and "philosopher kings". [11] He said: "It's an outrage, but not an unexpected outrage. We have thought all along that this court would usurp democracy and impose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat." [12] To counter the decision, he said Connecticut voters needed to support a proposal on the November 4 ballot to call a constitutional convention, which could lead to a popular vote on same-sex marriage. [3] Voters rejected the call for a convention, with over 59% of voters voting no. [13]

Marriages

On November 12, 2008, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Connecticut. [14] [15] Since California voters had passed a ban on same-sex marriage a few days earlier, Connecticut joined Massachusetts as the only other state licensing same-sex marriages.

In the three years between the time civil unions became available in Connecticut and the first same-sex marriages there, approximately 1,800 couples established civil unions. [11]

In the first year that marriage license were available to them, 1,746 same-sex couples married in Connecticut. [16]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Rogers recused herself after husband's law firm filed an amicus brief in the case. Senior Justice William J. Sullivan had first replaced Chase and then recused himself to be replaced by Harper. [1]
  2. ↑ At the time of the final decision in the case, the eight couples had 14 children. [3]

Related Research Articles

Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span>

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

<i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i> 2003 US state court case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, is a landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in which the Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New Jersey since October 21, 2013, the effective date of a trial court ruling invalidating the state's restriction of marriage to persons of different sexes. In September 2013, Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court, ruled that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, the Constitution of New Jersey requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The Windsor decision held that the federal government was required to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples who were married under state law as to other married couples. Therefore, the state court reasoned in Garden State Equality v. Dow that, because same-sex couples in New Jersey were limited to civil unions, which are not recognized as marriages under federal law, the state must permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This ruling, in turn, relied on the 2006 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris that the state was constitutionally required to afford the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court had ordered the New Jersey Legislature to correct the constitutional violation, by permitting either same-sex marriage or civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage, within 180 days. In response, it passed a bill to legalize civil unions on December 21, 2006, which became effective on February 19, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Connecticut Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut

The Connecticut Supreme Court, formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, is the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut. It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. The seven justices sit in Hartford, across the street from the Connecticut State Capitol. The court generally holds eight sessions of two to three weeks per year, with one session each September through November and January through May. Justices are appointed by the governor and then approved by the Connecticut General Assembly.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage and legal recognition of same-sex couples worldwide. It begins with the history of same-sex unions during ancient times, which consisted of unions ranging from informal and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions, and continues to modern-day state-recognized same-sex marriage. Events concerning same-sex marriages becoming legal in a country or in a country's state are listed in bold.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Connecticut since November 12, 2008 as a result of the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that the state's statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the Constitution of Connecticut and that the state's civil unions failed to provide same-sex couples with rights and privileges equivalent to those of marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2, making Hawaii the fifteenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights. When Hawaii's civil union law took effect at the start of 2012, same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions were considered civil unions in Hawaii.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an appellate court ruling in Wolf v. Walker that had found Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The appellate court issued its order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage the next day and Wisconsin counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately. Wisconsin had previously recognized domestic partnerships, which afforded limited legal rights to same-sex couples, from August 2009 until they were discontinued in April 2018.

Christine Siegrist Vertefeuille is a Senior Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Flemming L. Norcott Jr. is a former Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He was appointed to the Connecticut Superior Court in 1979 and remained there until his elevation to the Connecticut Appellate Court in 1987. He was appointed to the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1992. He also serves as Associate Fellow of Calhoun College at Yale University, as well as a lecturer. Justice Norcott received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1965 and a Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School in 1968. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut.

Peter T. Zarella is a former Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Zarella sat on the court he was appointed by Governor John G. Rowland in January 2001 until his retirement on December 31, 2016.

Same-sex marriage became legally recognized statewide in New Mexico through a ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court on December 19, 2013, requiring county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all qualified couples regardless of gender. Until then, same-sex couples could only obtain marriage licenses in certain counties of the state. Eight of the 33 counties, covering 58% of the state's population, had begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August and September 2013. New Mexico's marriage statute was not specific as to gender, and it was the only state lacking a state statute or constitutional provision explicitly addressing same-sex marriage. Lacking a state law or judicial ruling concerning same-sex marriage prior to December 19, 2013, policy for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was determined at the county level at the discretion of local issuing authorities i.e., some counties recognized same-sex marriage and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, while others did not.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

<i>Varnum v. Brien</i>

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Pennsylvania since May 20, 2014, when a U.S. federal district court judge ruled that the state's 1996 statutory ban on recognizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Governor Tom Corbett announced the following day that he would not appeal the decision. Pennsylvania had previously prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage by statute since 1996, but had never added such a ban to its State Constitution.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. state of Georgia since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Attorney General Sam Olens announced that Georgia would "adhere to the ruling of the Court", and the first couple married just one hour after the ruling was handed down. Previously, Georgia had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Tuohy, Lynne (May 11, 2007). "Landmark Case Loses 2nd Judge". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Mezey, Susan Gluck (2009). Gay Families and the Courts: The Quest for Equal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 118–20. ISBN   9781442200708.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Altimari, Daniela (October 11, 2008). "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on June 14, 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  4. ↑ Yardley, William (August 26, 2004). "Move Is Made in Connecticut Courts to Legalize Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  5. 1 2 Gordon, Jane (April 2, 2006). "Gay Marriage Case Now Before the Court". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  6. ↑ Findlaw: Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, August 15, 2006, accessed August 10, 2013
  7. ↑ Quoted in the Supreme Court opinion
  8. ↑ Tuohy, Lynne (May 15, 2007). "Arguing Over A Word". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  9. ↑ State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch: Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, majority opinion, accessed August 10, 2013
  10. ↑ Michael Levenson and Andrew Ryan (October 10, 2008). "Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage". The Boston Globe . Retrieved November 26, 2010.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 McFadden, Robert D. (October 10, 2008). "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  12. ↑ Cotts, Cynthia (October 10, 2008). "Connecticut Supreme Court Gives Gays Marriage Rights". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
  13. ↑ "Connecticut - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved May 8, 2017.
  14. ↑ Foderaro, Lisa W. (November 12, 2008). "Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  15. ↑ Szep, Jason (November 12, 2008). "Gay weddings begin in Connecticut as debate rages". Reuters. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Same-Sex Marriage: One Year Of Equality". Hartford Courant. November 19, 2009. Archived from the original on November 20, 2009. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.