<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF 
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
>
		
	<channel rdf:about="http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz">
	<title>CruzLines</title>
	<description>Powered by USC Law</description>
	<link>http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz</link>
	
	<items>
		<rdf:Seq>
			
			<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz/1/2008/10/Connecticut-Constitution-Protects-SameSex-Couples-Right-to-Marry.cfm" />
			
		</rdf:Seq>
	</items>
	
	</channel>
		
  	<item rdf:about="http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz/1/2008/10/Connecticut-Constitution-Protects-SameSex-Couples-Right-to-Marry.cfm">
	<title>Connecticut Constitution Protects Same-Sex Couples&apos; Right to Marry</title>
	<description>The Connecticut Supreme Court held today that it violated the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian persons under the Connecticut constitution to deny them the freedom to marry civilly.&amp;nbsp; The Court&apos;s opinion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; rejected the state&apos;s argument that the marriage exclusion was constitutional because Connecticut offers same-sex couples &amp;quot;civil unions&amp;quot; with the same state-controlled legal incidents of marriage.&amp;nbsp; At least when such an exclusion &amp;quot;singles out a group that has historically been the object of scorn, intolerance, ridicule or worse,&amp;quot; even &amp;quot;symbolic or intangible&amp;quot; differential treatment is a constitutional harm Connecticut courts may address.&amp;nbsp; And because marriage &amp;quot;is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance,&amp;quot; whereas the new vintage status of civil unions (created by the Connecticut legislature during this lawsuit) most surely is not,&amp;quot; the two legal regimes are not equal in a way insulating them from judicial review, the 4-3 majority ruled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Connecticut majority held that the marriage exclusion was a &amp;quot;quasi-suspect classification,&amp;quot; which means that the state had to produce &amp;quot;an exceedingly persuasive justification&amp;quot; for its discrimination, not one that is barely rational.&amp;nbsp; (This intermediate scrutiny standard is more deferential than the strict scrutiny used by the California Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;In Re Marriage Cases&lt;/em&gt; this past May.)&amp;nbsp; The court rejected the state&apos;s claim that promoting uniformity and consistency with other states&apos; and countries&apos; marriage laws was a sufficiently important purpose to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.&amp;nbsp; And it also rejected the argument that preserving the &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; definition of marriage as limited to relationships between one man and one woman could justify the statute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so the court ordered the case be sent back down to grant the plaintiffs a declaration that the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the Connecticut constitution and an injunction requiring state officials to let them marry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, the question remains whether California will remain with Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states in the union to allow same-sex couples to marry, or whether the voters will approve Proposition 8 on November 4 and eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.</description>
	<link>http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz/1/2008/10/Connecticut-Constitution-Protects-SameSex-Couples-Right-to-Marry.cfm</link>
	<dc:date>2008-10-10T12:08:00-08:00</dc:date>
	
	<dc:subject>equal protection,sexual orientation discrimination,Prop 8,marriage,Connecticut Supreme Court</dc:subject>
	</item>
	</rdf:RDF> 