Top Court Hears the
Case for Same-Sex Marriage
By STACEY STOWE,
NYTimes on the Web, May 20, 2007
Hartford -- CAROL CONKLIN, an
electrician from Colchester, was raised to believe that she would grow up, fall
in love and get married.
She’s two-thirds of the way there.
Thirty-one years ago, she fell in love with Janet Peck, a mental health
counselor, whom she had met at a dinner party.
“I think we’ve been engaged long enough,” Ms. Conklin, 54, said as she stood
with Ms. Peck, 56, in the State Supreme Court building on Monday. “We
ought to be able to get married.”
Inside, the seven justices were hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by eight
same-sex couples — including Ms. Peck and Ms. Conklin — over whether the
establishment of civil unions by the state Legislature in 2005 created an
unequal status for gay men and lesbians.
Massachusetts is the only state to legalize gay marriage. Three other
states — Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire — have adopted civil unions, but
Connecticut was the first to do so without a court order.
Last week, the Supreme Court became the first in the nation to hear arguments
over whether civil unions fulfill the state’s constitutional obligation to treat
couples equally. The plaintiffs are challenging a lower court’s ruling
that civil unions give same-sex couples the same rights and protections as
marriage.
Like three other couples who are plaintiffs, Ms. Conklin and Ms. Peck have not
entered into a civil union and are holding out for marriage. “A civil
union carries a second-rate status for our relationship,” Ms. Peck said.
“Carol is the love of my life, and I want to marry her.”
This year, the General Assembly’s Joint Judiciary Committee passed a bill to
change the name of civil unions to marriage, but it was tabled for lack of
support in the House. The State Supreme Court can deny the plaintiffs’
claim, remand it to the lower court with instructions, or send it to the
legislature; a decision is expected in the fall.
Peter J. Wolfgang, the public policy director for the Family Institute of
Connecticut, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision should be left to the
public. “If we’re going to radically redefine marriage, if we’re going to
change the basic social institution, it’s a decision that ought to come from the
people, not from an unelected judiciary,” he said.
Legalizing gay marriage, Mr. Wolfgang said, would also permit “motherless and
fatherless households that are not in the best interests of children.”
State Representative Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven and the
co-chairman of the Joint Judicial Committee, said the legislature considered the
impact on children when it passed the civil union bill.
“The discussion has been going on in Connecticut for nine years,” said Mr.
Lawlor, who supports gay marriage. “All the impact studies have been done.
We treat gay and straight couples the same. The only thing we do is give
it different names.”
Two other plaintiffs, Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman, were joined in a civil
union in 2005, they said by phone Wednesday from New Haven after getting their
children, Maya, 11, and Joshua, 9, off to school.
But they still want to be married, especially for their children.
“Joshua is so confused,” Barbara Levine-Ritterman, 54, a computer consultant,
said. “He doesn’t understand why we aren’t married. A civil union is
beyond his comprehension.”
She said she survived breast cancer but remembers her apprehension about whether
her partner would be allowed the same access to her in the hospital as a spouse.
Robin Levine-Ritterman, 48, a naturopathic physician and acupuncturist, said:
“Look at our ordinary lives: We own our own home. We’re raising two
children and sending them to Hebrew School. We’re not very different from
any other family.”
Both women referred to the “universality” of the word “marriage,” a status
understood and accepted round the world, and one they want to share. “What
are Robin and I now?” Barbara Levine-Ritterman asked. “Civilized?
Unionized? Civilly united? C.U.’d? We’re left with a clumsy
noun.”
|
