You can read the majority opinion at this link (PDF). Links to the majority and several dissenting opinions are available here.
I haven’t read the opinion yet. Here’s the summary:
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians,1 and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage…. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
for good news. Hopefully, this helps in California. It’s a trend, folks. Equality’s marching.
And I haven’t read the decision yet either, but I’m very glad to see they have followed in California’s footsteps and deemed sexual orientation quasi-suspect and granted it a higher degree of scrutiny than simply rational basis.
<
p>Now if only we can keep marriage legal in California. If people can donate, feel free to do so at NoonProp8.com.
While I join with others in applauding this ruling my one concern is that it puts the issue front and center and rallies the religious right less than a month before the election. At least it is probably too late for any more states to put a question on the ballot which would limit marriage like we saw so many of in 2004.
wasn’t already pretty busy, you’re not paying attention. đŸ˜€ any fundie that was going to have a fit over connecticut is already having one over california. this just helps split their attention. the only effect it may have this election is that a few more connecticut voters may vote “yes” on the ballot question of whether connecticut should hold a constitutional convention. otherwise all this decision does is give obama one more opportunity to stand in solidarity with the bigots, so i’m sure he’s pleased.
I can just see the reasoning: “I can tolerate the idea of living in a cardboard box thanks to the Republicans’ mismanagement, but there’s no way I’m going to vote for anyone who would let a married gay couple live in the cardboard box down the alley!”
I am ecstatic, and look forward to having time to read the decision. I hope it is as strong as the CA decision was.
<
p>PLEASE CELEBRATE BY KEEPING MARRIAGE LEGAL IN
But read it here first!
In Hartford at the capital. http://www.lmfct.org/site/Page…
How can Obama and Biden continue to get away with having such an obviously wrong and illogical and unconstitutional position? Of course if a same-sex couple has all the rights and responsibilities as marriage, their union can’t be given a different legal name. As a Constitutional Law professor, he knows this. It is an insult to the electorate.
<
p>Let’s hope this ruling helps people recognize that whether same-sex couples “all the rights of marriage” is the important question, as Guilliani did when he said New Hampshire’s CU’s went “too far” even though he supported CU’s for same-sex couples. “Marriage in all but name” CU’s are not tenable, they won’t float, and they will become marriage. The question is, should same-sex couples have all the rights that a married man and woman should have?
I actually agree with Biden and Obama in their opposition to federal gay marriage on constitutional grounds. Notice they never said they oppose the right of states to have gay marriage, they simply oppose the federal government implementing a gay marriage law.
<
p>The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue.
<
p>Obama/Biden support the strongest worded and enforceable federal domestic partnerships possible satisfying the 14th amendment
<
p>
<
p>Clearly states that ban civil unions and continue to discriminate gays are in violation of this amendment, also there should be a national standard of domestic partnership benefits for all Americans and they should be treated equally by the federal government. Marriage credits, wills, visitation rights, etc. all the practical rights marriage grants should be available to ALL Americans regardless of orientation
<
p>That said nowhere does the Constitution say defining marriage is the purview of the federal government, hence a federal gay marriage ban would be unconstitutional as well as a federal gay marriage law.
<
p>
<
p>So I would argue that Biden being a 20 year veteran of the Judiciary Committee and Obama being a former Con Law prof at the best law school in the country are merely following constitutional logic on this one.
<
p>Are they calling for an end to gay marriage in MA, CT, or CA? If they are not then they support gay marriage in states where it exists, and are going to fight to protect the more important tangible rights marriage provides to all Americans and leave the right of calling those rights ‘marriage’ up to the states where it belongs.
mentioned the federal government implementing a gay marriage law? as far as i know, they never have and no one has seriously pitched the idea.
Biden mentioned in the debate that he opposes gay marriage at the federal level, believes that marriage is a state issue, and believes that the federal government has a responsibility to create partnerships or civil unions at the federal level (basically marriage in all but name) but that the marriage responsibility is a state issue. Obama went on record in his book that he believes essentially the same thing in terms of the federal government conveying contracts but not marriage, which is constitutionally correct. He also stated in his book that he still personally opposes gay marriage, which is a decision I disagree with, but nowhere does he state he would oppose state action such as those that have occurred.
<
p>In any case they are not saying anything constitutionally unsound. Were they to support banning gay marriage federally, oppose basic civil unions and gay rights at the federal level, support DOTA and DOMA, or oppose the right of states to implement gay marriage then they would be constitutionally unsound.
that
is misleading because it implies that someone has pitched a federal gay marriage law. the simple truth is that they haven’t.
Neither Obama nor Biden has ever limited his position to opposing gay marriage “at the federal level.” They are against gay marriage, period. From the VP debate:
<
p>
<
p>And there’s no shortage of Obama quotes in which he squarely comes out against gay marriage, as you well know. Now that doesn’t mean that Obama and Biden are going to weigh in on state-level determinations about marriage. They’re not stupid enough to do that — they recognize that that would be political suicide, and further that the feds don’t really have much to say about the definition of marriage (other than the odious DOMA). But don’t pretend that Obama and Biden are secretly progressives on this issue. They’re not — they are cowards on this issue. Sad but true.
They just hope the electorate thinks that what matters is that they “personally” don’t support gay marriage, like the standard position on abortion. But since they support all the rights of marriage in civil unions, and since they know that never could possibly hold up Constitutionally, they are just hoping they make it to Nov. 4th before people realize they are effectively for gay marriage. Will they make it through the month on that evaporating tightrope? Maybe, but if it gets to the nitty gritty, they don’t have to support all the rights of a married man and a woman, if all those rights are properly enumerated as to what all those rights are.
aside from the facts that you have absolutely no evidence of that, and that there’s lots of evidence to the contrary, what you say makes perfect sense.
What does that even mean? Can you give me an example of a right which hasn’t been properly enumerated?
<
p>I do love the idea of arresting Bristol Palin for procreating without a license.
That way lies madness.
We can’t mention the essential right of marriage here, but ElectricStrawberry and I had a recent discussion about it at RedMassGroup last week you are most welcome to participate in.
Do you have ANY backing for this?
<
p>
<
p>Please remember, hoping something is true doesn’t make it true.
<
p>As for your real point, ElectricStrawberry nails it:
<
p>
<
p>
because he’s never directly the issue, we can only try to deduce it from related statements and policies, like being pro-genetics resaerch, and pro-LGBT equality, and pro-choice. Someone that had the opposite views on those would certainly not be a transhumanist. I am hoping that he isn’t, that he shares those views with transhumanists but not their other goals, and that he will explain eloquently to the fervent moonbats among his supporters why we need to stick with natural sexual reproduction.
<
p>As to who Transhumanists support, it’s the impression I get from visiting Transhumanist blogs, like Metamagician3000 and Amor Mundi and Sentient Developments. But it’s true that it’s often a lukewarm support, because Obama is too Christian, and they’re all athiests (except for the Mormon Transhumanists, who are the ONLY transhumanists that also identify with a religion, unless you consider Transhumanism itself to be a religion, as some do).
<
p>Are you ElectricStrawberry on RMG? Or CSI? Either way, I responded to that there already, and would be happy to explain further if you leave a comment there.
<
p>Your logic and evidence is tissue thin. Not only is your first link to an Australian, only the second link is to an Obama supporter and he supports Obama for perfectly sane, normal, reasons. Linking gay marriage to transhumanism seems to be yet another desperate effort to legitimize something which is, at core, just a thin veneer over homophobia.
<
p>BTW, agreeing with someone who’s questioned your sanity doesn’t make me that person.
If you can find me a transhumanist McCain supporter, that’d be interesting, to say the least. I’m telling you there aren’t any. And that’s in spite of the fact that virtually all Transhumanists are lassaiz-faire libertarians and usually economic capitalists and pro-war imperialists (Well, many are anti the Iraq war, but I think that’s just because it’s Bush’s war, they aren’t opposed to the US spreading democracy and fighting fundamentalist regimes with force). Yet they reject Republicans because they’re pro-life and opposed to SSM. It is the fundy right wing that they fear more than anything, same as SSMers. Find me one transhumanist opposed to SSM, or find me one pro-SSM person who would accept a ban on [CENSORED]. It’s totally congruent. They might have different focuses, but they agree. You want a source for that? How about considering me an expert on this subject, since I have spent ten years engaging with pro-genetic engineering folks and pro-ssm folks online? I’ve never encountered one that agreed with me about one but disagreed about the other (well, I’ve encountered lame professional “marriage defenders” like Maggie Gallagher who don’t agree that we need a law to stop genetic engineering, but they’re calculating frauds.)
or was the last time I talked with him earlier this year. I think he just has a deep-seated antipathy to Democrats on economic issues. I guess it is easier to ignore Republican positions on social issues if you live in a Northeastern state.
<
p>
OK, I’ll believe you. I guess he’s confident that McCain won’t let the RR influence his policies, and will not oppose GE (worrisome possibility) or that the decisions on whether to allow it or not won’t be made this term, so he’s not voting on Transhumanism, he’s voting on his Libertarianism or Capitalism positions. He wouldn’t be alone in that, I guess, as I said, most Transhumanists are Republicans in areas other than life/bioethics. Do you know his position on SSM?
States and countries merely have their own culturally accepted requirements, but once married, a couple is married everywhere on the globe. If any jurisdiction ever decides that an existing marriage is against their public policy, they can void it, refuse to recognize it.
<
p>Marriage, because it is a license to create people (Lawrence), is a Federal issue, since the people created will be American citizens, regardless of the state they are born in. It’s an immigration issue. Also, because it is an internationally recognized status, and states are prohibited from entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries, it is a federal issue. States merely perform the rites and paperwork on behalf of our country.
I can’t speak to other countries, but within the US it is a state issue. Otherwise, all Massachusetts marriages would count in the other 49 states, not just a small handful of them. Furthermore, an American citizen who’s gay and marries someone who isn’t American can’t use marriage as a means to nationalize their spouse. This is actually a huge problem for a great many gay couples in Massachusetts. Case in point, I met a really nice Irish student at North Eastern the other day who’s engaged to marry an American, but they’re panicking because they don’t know how they’ll stay with each other due to the fact that the Irish guy won’t be able to gain citizenship when he gets married. This all means that gay citizens in Massachusetts are still, unfortunately, second class citizens because of the federal government’s DOMA.
So you’re saying unmarried people can’t procreate? Tell that to Bristol Palin. She seems to have had no trouble…
<
p>Or are you saying children born out of wedlock aren’t Americans? Interesting take. Seems like adding insult to injury.
<
p>What are you trying to get at, really?
So we can’t have states allowing people to create American citizens in ways or into circumstances that violate their constitutional rights. If New Jersey were a sovereign country, they would be making New Jersey citizens only, so New Jersey could make its policy on its own, but New Jersey is part of the United States, so it can’t. (The points you raise, btw, are shite)
decides the case on Connecticut Equal Protection grounds, but relies almost exclusively on federal Constitutional law and Constitutional law from other states. The Court cites surprisingly little CT law. It applies a 4 part test derived from federal Constitutional principles to determine when discrimination against a class will receive intermediate scrutiny. The 4 parts are 1) a history of discrimination 2) ability of the class to contribute to society 3) immutability and 4) lack of political power. I’ve never seen the test for determining a quasi-suspect class laid out like this. I could be wrong, maybe some court has before, but it seems that the CT Supreme Court compiled the reasons that intermediate scrutiny has been applied in past decisions to create this 4 part test. But the Court supports its 4 part test well with many cites to cases where heightened scrutiny was first applied to a class.
<
p>The CT Constitution contains a prohibition on discrimination based on “religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, or physical or mental disability.” The Supreme Court rejected the claim that that list should be an exhaustive list of classes subject to heightened scrutiny. I think they would have been on better grounds explicitly restricting strict scrutiny to those grounds and noting that intermediate scrutiny arises when the 4 part test is met, but they seemed content to simply reject that claim and rest on the analysis in their 4 part test.
<
p>Despite the fact that the Court relies heavily on federal Constitutional cases, it rejects the many federal cases holding that sexual orientation discrimination is only subject to rational basis. The Court notes that many of the cases applying rational basis were decided before Lawrence v TX. This is a questionable conclusion because Lawrence was decided on due process grounds. But the court does note that Bowers (which was overruled by Lawrence) is cited to support the application of rational basis. However, I think that the fact that the ruling in Bowers has been sloppily interpreted is no excuse to, in turn, sloppily interpret Lawrence. The Court would probably have been better off citing federal law to adopt the 4 part test as a Connecticut Constitutional doctrine while simply ignoring the federal cases imposing rational basis for sexual orientation discrimination claims.
<
p>Overall the case is well reasoned. The Court does a good job attempting to compile existing law to create a test to determine when a class will be considered quasi-suspect. And the Court applies the test convincingly, in my view, to determine that sexual orientation deserves intermediate scrutiny. The only part of the decision that I question is the reasoning for not following the many federal cases holding that sexual orientation only gets rational basis. I don’t think that part is particularly well reasoned, but I also don’t think its necessary to the decision.
<
p>I think that holding from Goodridge that failing to allow same sex marriage fails rational basis was wrong. I think that same sex marriage proponents are on much better footing following the CA and CT cases both imposing intermediate scrutiny in future cases.
I know zip about the law, Constitutional or otherwise, but, fwiw, this comment seemed like a smart, non-political, fairly objective analysis. Of course, I may be saying this only because I am a proponent of gay marriage and this comment supports the position I already had. But I did find it an interesting read.