Facts
- Eight same-sex couples residing in Connecticut sought marriage license applications from the Madison town clerk and were refused based on the state’s interpretation that marriage was limited to opposite-sex couples.
- Connecticut law limited civil marriage to one man and one woman.
- In 2005, Connecticut created civil unions for same-sex couples, granting the same state-law benefits, protections, and responsibilities as marriage, but not the designation “marriage.”
- The couples sued state and local officials responsible for marriage licensing and registration, alleging that restricting them to civil unions violated the Connecticut Constitution’s equality and liberty guarantees.
Issues
- Whether denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage, while providing civil unions, violates the Connecticut Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
- Whether classifications based on sexual orientation trigger heightened scrutiny under the Connecticut Constitution.
- Whether the Connecticut Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to same-sex marriage (and whether resolution of that question was necessary).
Decision
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court in a 4–3 decision.
- The court held that sexual-orientation classifications are quasi-suspect under the Connecticut Constitution and therefore subject to heightened scrutiny.
- The court concluded that limiting “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while confining same-sex couples to civil unions violated state constitutional equal protection.
- The majority resolved the case on equal protection grounds and did not decide whether there is a fundamental state constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Legal Principles
- Under the Connecticut Constitution, sexual-orientation classifications are quasi-suspect and trigger heightened scrutiny.
- Heightened scrutiny requires the state to prove that (1) the classification serves important governmental objectives and (2) the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achieving those objectives.
- Equal protection protects against both unequal legal incidents and unequal legal status; a separate legal institution reserved for a historically disfavored group may be unconstitutional even if it confers equivalent state-law benefits.
- Tradition, standing alone, is insufficient to justify maintaining unequal treatment under heightened scrutiny.
- Assertions that excluding same-sex couples from marriage serves child-welfare objectives must be supported by evidence sufficient to meet the state’s burden under heightened scrutiny.
Conclusion
The court held that the Connecticut Constitution requires the state to permit same-sex couples to marry and that restricting them to civil unions denies equal protection by imposing a separate, lesser legal status based on sexual orientation.