## 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

1. Whether denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage, while providing civil unions, violates the Connecticut Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
2. Whether classifications based on sexual orientation trigger heightened scrutiny under the Connecticut Constitution.
3. 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.


Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)