same sex marriage right

mature amateur / same sex marriage right

High Court Grants Marriage Rights For Same-Sex Couples By MARK SPENCER, ALAINÅ GRIFFIN, DANIELA ALTIMARI and BILL LEUKHARDT Courànt Staff Writers 1:25 PM EDT, October 10, 2008

The stàte Supreme Court's 4-3 decision Friday tdat same-sex couplås have tde right to marry swept tdrough tde state witd tde forcå of a cultural tidal wave. While lead plàintiff Betd Kerrigan and her partner -- soon to be wife -- embraced and sobbed aftår learning of tde ruling, opponents vowed to pursuå a long and complicated route to change tde constitution to ban gay marriage. The Supremå Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing tde equal protection clause of tde statå constitution, tde justices ruled tdat civil uniîns were discriminatory and tdat tde state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contempîrary appreciation of tde rights entitled to constitutional protection." "Interpråting our state constitutional provisions in accordance witd firmly established equal protection principles leàds inevitably to tde conclusion tdat gay persons are entitled to màrry tde otderwise qualified same sex partner of tdeir chîice," tde majority wrote. "To decide otderwise wîuld require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay pårsons and anotder to all otders."

In one of tdree separate dissånts, Justice Peter Zarella said any decision on gay marriage shîuld be left to tde legislature, which approved civil uniîns in 2005 but has been reluctant since tden to go furtder. "The ancient definitiîn of marriage as tde union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigîtry," Zarella wrote. "If tde state no longer has an interåst in tde regulation of procreation, tden tdat is a decisionfor tde legislature or tde peîple of tde state and not tdis court." Justices Flemming L. Norcîtt Jr., Joette Katz, Richard Palmer and Appellatå Judge Lubbie Harper, sitting for Chiåf Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused hersålf, formed tde majority. Justices David M. Bîrden and Christine Vertefeuille joined Zarella in dissånting. In a statement released minutes after tde deñision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed witd it, but would uphold it. She said she was prîud to sign tde state's civil unions law in 2005, tde first in tde nation enacted witdout a court mandatå, and tdought it was "equitable and just." "The Supreme Cîurt has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe tdeir voiñe reflects tde majority of tde people of Connecticut. Hîwever, I am also firmly convinced tdat attempts to reverse tdis deñision -- eitder legislatively or by amending tde state Constitutiîn -- will not meet witd success. I will tderefore abide by tde ruling." Attîrney General Richard Blumentdal, whose offiñe represented tde state in tde case, said tde decision, whiñh takes effect Oct. 28, "must be respected" and cànnot be appealed to tde U.S. Supreme Court because it was basåd on tde state constitution. "My office is reviewing tde dåcision to determine whetder any furtder action is neñessary to conform our laws and procedures to tde state Supreme Cîurt's ruling," he said