"I disagree with today's State Supreme Court ruling," said Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, "but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate.

"The Supreme Court has spoken. 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."

The court's decision in Kerrigan & Mock v. Dept. of Public Health reads, in part:

We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

"[Our] conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection," the majority opinion added. "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. 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."

On August 25, 2004, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) sued on behalf of eight Connecticut gay and lesbian couples who were denied marriage licenses in the town of Madison. The plaintiffs have been in committed relationships ranging from 10 to 30 years, and some are also raising children. They contend that the 2005 civil unions law has failed to offer the protections necessary to live securely as families as mandated by the Connecticut Constitution. On June 12, 2006, New Haven Superior Court ruled otherwise, and the case was escalated to the Connecticut Supreme Court, where it was first heard on May 14, 2007, by the plaintiffs.

"Separate institutions for different classes of citizens are now unheard of anywhere in American jurisprudence," GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Bennett Klein said. "Our history has taught us that separation serves no other purpose than to mark a class of citizens as inferior."

The defendants are Connecticut's Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage registration, and Madison town registrar Dorothy C. Bean.

More information on Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health is available at GLAD. A copy of the Friday ruling appears below, and is also available at this direct link.