3 states! http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=21641 Conn. court legalizes gay marriage Ruling says 'couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry' The Washington Blade | Oct 10, 11:24 AM The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Connecticut is now poised to become the nation’s third state to allow same-sex marriage, joining California and Massachusetts. "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling says. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. "The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry." Eight same-sex couples sued, claiming their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses. Check here for updates later today and the Oct. 17 print edition of the paper for full details. -- http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story Same-sex couples won the right to marry in Connecticut in an historic ruling by the Supreme Court today. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory. In a 4-3 decision released at 11:30 a.m., the majority wrote that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection." "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others." Related links Past Coverage Of Connecticut's Gay Marriage Fight Fight For Gay Marriage Rights Photos Official Court Ruling: Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health <h4>Same-Sex Marriage In Connecticut?</h4> Do you support gay couples' right to marry in Connecticut? Yes (444 responses) 71.4% No (118 responses) 19.0% No, but I support civil unions (60 responses) 9.6% 622 total responses (Results not scientific) Susan Campbell | Pop the bubbly! Colin McEnroe | To Wit : Gay mariage -- legal in CT Official Court Ruling: Dissent 1 Official Court Ruling: Dissent 2 Official Court Ruling: Dissent 3 In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state's civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was "equitable and just." "The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling." Opponents were obviously disappointed in the ruling. "The court has just usurped democracy in Connecticut and redefined marriage by judical force,'' said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. "Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.'' Unsatisfied with the civil unions, eight same-sex couples had brought the case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, after they were denied marriage licenses in 2004 by the Madison town clerk, who was following instructions issued by the state attorney general's office. The state, arguing that civil unions already provide all the rights and protections of marriage, prevailed in a Superior Court ruling in July 2006. The couples appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which heard three hours of arguments on the case in May 2007.