I can reach no conclusion on whether a Connecticut court would hold that limiting the status of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates constitutional standards.
Ultimately, the courts will have the final say.... [O]ur marriage statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality.On August 25, 2004, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit, led by attorney Bennett Klein, on behalf of seven (later eight) Connecticut same-sex couples in State Superior Court, challenging the state's denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples.
"[5] The Family Institute of Connecticut asked to be allowed to intervene to defend the suit, but Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman denied that request and her decision was upheld on appeal.
When Klein argued that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right and guaranteed by the state constitution's ban on sex-based discrimination, Justice David M. Borden told him he was "riding two horses".
The Justices also referenced recent activity in the legislature, where a week earlier the judiciary committee had endorsed same-sex marriage by a vote of 27–15, surprising legislators who then prevailed upon the bill's sponsors to delay its consideration.
[9] The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.
The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not....There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage.
Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.The ruling was scheduled to take effect on October 28.
The fact that same sex couples cannot engage in sexual conduct of a type that can result in the birth of a child is a critical difference in this context.
Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, called the judges "robed masters" and "philosopher kings".
"[12] To counter the decision, he said Connecticut voters needed to support a proposal on the November 4 ballot to call a constitutional convention, which could lead to a popular vote on same-sex marriage.