New Haven, CT -- The New England legal advocacy organization that secured marriage in Massachusetts in 2003, and the first civil unions in the nation in Vermont in 1999, today filed legal briefs arguing that the denial of marriage to lesbian and gay citizens violates the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.  Further, argues GLAD, Connecticut's legislative remedy of civil unions actually strengthens the case for marriage equality.

The motion for summary judgment filed in New Haven Superior Court today by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) marks the next stage in the marriage equality lawsuit Kerrigan-Mock v. Department of Public Health, which was filed in August 2004.  An Amicus Brief accompanying GLAD's formal filing was signed by 25 organizations, including the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Association of Social Workers (national and Connecticut), and the Connecticut AFL-CIO.

"Connecticut's civil union law – which grants gay couples every tangible, legal right and benefit of civil marriage – makes a mockery of the argument that the state has any legitimate reason to deny these couples marriage," said GLAD senior attorney Bennett Klein.  "Civil unions establish separation for the sake of separation, exclusion for the sake of exclusion.  That's plainly wrong."

GLAD filed the Kerrigan-Mockcase on behalf of eight loving, committed gay and lesbian Connecticut couples, together for between ten and 30 years, who were denied marriage licenses when they applied for them in Madison, CT.  Subsequently, the Connecticut Legislature passed and Governor Jodi Rell signed legislation granting civil unions but denying marriage.

"Civil unions tell me that after almost 30 years of love and commitment, I am not worthy of giving to Carol what I, and all of society, honor as the ultimate sharing of love and commitment," said plaintiff Janet Peck.  She and Carol Conklin live in Colchester and will celebrate their 30 th anniversary together in October.

Like many of the plaintiff couples, Peck and Conklin are likely to seek the protections of civil unions when they becomes available October 1, but view those protections as further indication of the state devaluing their relationship and responsibilities to one another.  "I know we will stand to gain in ..benefits, too," added Conklin.  "But these benefits do not outweigh the disrespect I feel from being put in a separate legal category by the civil union law."

According to GLAD's brief, the legislative debate on civil unions reveals that the key motives for creating a separate system for gay couples were resistance to change, placating prejudice, or simply separation for the sake of separation. For example:

• A senator stated on April 6, 2005, "Civil unions will provide an important legal framework, but more importantly, recognition of the same-sex relationships between two people of the same sex, people who deserve the same legal rights and responsibilities my wife and I have…At the same time, I think there are a great many people I represent who would rather call that something other than marriage."

• A representative said on April 13, 2005, "I believe in my heart and soul that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. But I also believe that same-sex couples in long-term committed relationships deserve rights.  Call it civil union then."

"The creation of a separate status for same sex couples – simply for purposes of exclusion and separation – cannot be a legitimate state purpose," states the GLAD brief.  "As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court observed in rejecting a civil union alternative under that state's constitution, '(t)he history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.'"

GLAD's motion for summary judgment places the constitutional issues in this case before the Superior Court for a final decision.  The next step is for the Attorney General and the town of Madison to file their response to the motion, after which the court will hold a hearing, probably by the end of the year.

The plaintiff couples are: Beth Kerrigan (50) and Jody Mock (51) of West Hartford, parents of three-year-old twin boys; John Anderson (62) and Garrett Stack (58) of Woodbridge, who have a combined 55 years of service to the Stratford public school system; Geraldine (35) and Suzanne (34) Artis of Clinton, parents of a seven-year-old and five-year-old twins; Jeffrey Busch (42) and Stephen Davis (52) of Wilton, who work in New York City and are raising their two-year-old son, Elijah; Barbara (52) and Robin (46) Levine-Ritterman of New Haven, who along with their nine-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son are facing the challenge of Barb's breast cancer; J.E. Martin (42) and Denise Howard (47) of Stratford, parents of eight-year-old Rachel and five-year-old Ross; and Janet Peck (54) and Carol Conklin (52) of Colchester, life-long Connecticut residents who share a relationship of 29 years; and Gloria Searson (45) and Demaris Navarro (44) of West Haven, who are raising four children together.

In addition to GLAD lawyers Bennett Klein, Mary L. Bonauto, Karen Loewy, and Jennifer Levi, the legal team includes Maureen Murphy of Murphy, Murphy, Nugent in New Haven, Kenneth J. Bartschi and Karen Dowd of Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, and Annette Lamoureaux of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. 

###

Related Links

Biographies of the plaintiff couples.

More about this case.