Proponents of same-sex marriage say that civil unions only perpetrate the “separate but equal” assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court so resoundingly struck down in the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954.
[...]
Opponents of expanding marriage to include same-sex couples say civil unions provide all the same state legal rights, responsibilities and benefits as marriage does for heterosexual couples. (Tuohy)
A lower court has already agreed with the second argument.
I would rather see Connecticut enact gay marriage without prompting from the courts, if only because I believe the blowback would be significantly reduced. It’s unfortunate that proponents of a same-sex marriage bill were unable to find the votes to pass it this session for just that reason.
Still, if this is how it has to happen, I would welcome it. We’ll see what the arguments are like today.
Source
Tuohy, Lynn. “Marriage Vs. Civil Unions.” Hartford Courant 14 May, 2007.
15 responses so far ↓
If the Supreme Court recognizes same-sex marriage, the debate is over. If they don’t I would expect Lawlor & McDonald would call for a vote next session and force the Democratic majority to do the right thing in an election year. I do believe the votes are there but think Lawlor & McDonald after some pleading let their colleagues off the hook pending a Supreme Court ruling.
The hearing is being broadcast live on CTN right now.
It’s the first case ever where CTN is allowed to use multiple cameras and are able to zoom in close. It’s much better to watch than that stationary camera all of the way at the back of the room where you couldn’t even tell who was speaking.
…very interesting oral argument…good lawyers for both sides…i could see why borden wanted cameras in the courtroom; im getting the impression he really loves and knows the cameras are on
it’s definitely a lot less boring to watch when they have these multiple camera angles
Agreed, it’s pretty interesting to watch!
“it’s definitely a lot less boring to watch when they have these multiple camera angles”
…so the “openness” crisis in ct was over camera angles?
…Does anyone have a feel on which justices will vote which way?
No, that was the “boringness” crisis. Which is now solved!
Borden has been on camera quite a bit.
…my high school teachers were boring, but that did not mean it was a crisis. I thought the arguments after the recess were boring. When is this decision going to be released?
We’ll know the decision later this year. I don’t know the exact date. It usually seems to take 3-4 months…
Check out the summary of the arguments from the Courant.
GLAD also live blogged the event http://blog.glad.org/
I attended the oral argument today. I was struck by the front wall mural that reaches nearly to the 35 foot high ceiling. The mural dominates the front of the courtroom. It depicts early settlers in a semi-circle with one of them, John Haynes, holding a copy of a new constitution in his hands.
This new constitution was the 1638 Fundamental Orders. Our civil marriage law looks back to these Fundamental Orders as they provided secular civil control of marriage to our government, not the church. Only later did Connecticut “deputize” clergy to allow them to act as agents of the state in officiating at marriage ceremonies. This history is recounted in the 1905 Connecticut case of Gould v. Gould.
At the top of this mural there appears to be shining light. I wondered whether the light from the mural might enter the minds of the justices as they wrestled with the marriage equality issue.
I have attended numerous hearings at the Legislative Office Building and the New Haven Superior Court arguments in the Kerrigan case. I could recognize a large majority of court watchers today as either media or supporters of marriage equality.
I suspect that the court will deliver both a majority decision and a dissenting minority decision. That being the case, my educated estimate is that the decision will not arrive until sometime in 2008.
Very good observations, WSCoughlin.
I wish more justices had asked questions. It seemed that the whole argument was dominated by Justices Borden and Palmer and Judge Harper.
Anyway, it certainly was interesting. Justice Borden’s questions about the civil union law and its relationship to any decision by the Court were certainly instructive.
My best guess is that they deny the appeal and leave it up to the legislature. I have been wrong, however, on many occasions.
>>This new constitution was the 1638 Fundamental Orders
Actually, The Fundamental Orders were originally a 7 page sermon (5 of which survive) by Thomas Hooker himself on Pentacost Sunday, 1638; but not codified until the next year.
Just a minor point.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm
You must log in to post a comment.