This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
As happened with California, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The opinion put out today is not effective yet. According to this source, its direction to the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs (that is to overturn the ban on SSM), takes effect on October 28. The trial court's order will determine when marriage will become available. Currently, the article is written as though couples in Connecticut could go get married today, which is not true.
Also, at some related articles, people are acting as though the civil union law was ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't, the part of it that said marriage is between a man and a woman was. Beyond that, it was the overall statutory scheme that was ruled unconstitutional. That is to say, offering civil union instead of SSM was rejected, not civil unions. Until someone abrogates the Civil Union Act, it should not be treated as though it was repealed. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the catch. We are indeed getting ahead of ourselves. TechBear (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Happens all the time, politically charged or not. It would be helpful if the media could get this right, but at least that Reuters article got it. With California, the numbers changed repeatedly, which was pretty funny. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The trial court can't legalize SSM - all it can do is implement the decision with regard to the individual plaintiffs in this particular case. You'll note that the court in the decision cites to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence, for example, and not the trial court's decision. Rather, the decision of the court itself serves as the interpretation of the Conn. Constitution and therefore the ban on gay marriages may be considered to be overturned at the time the opinion is made official (judging from the header on the opinion, I assume that's the 28th, though severalreliablesources say it was the 10th). --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from response to identical post at Template talk:Same-sex unions in the United States) Okay, so let's be even more precise. The Supreme Court said that the current statutory scheme violates the Connecticut Constitution and instructed the trial court to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs (the couples seeking to obtain marriage licenses). The Supreme Court's instruction to the trial court does not take effect until October 28. Once it receives the instruction (called a mandate) the court will notify the lawyers for each side and set a court date. It may be that the parties and court have set that court date for the 28th already, but there is no reason to think they did. At the court date, the court will likely issue an order granting summary judgment and issuing an injunction directing a town clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (it is also possible, because the issue went up to the supreme court, that the injunction will be worded to apply to more than just the town clerk(s) at issue). That injunction will then be served on the clerk, and same-sex marriage licenses will then need to be issued. The court could decide to give the government more time to prepare themselves for issuing such licenses. Before the injunction is issued, the clerks cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Marriage licenses are a creature of statute, and clerks' power and duty to issue them is currently exclusively based on the statute. That will only change once a court tells them the statute is unconstitutional and they must do something else. The supreme court opinion does not do that; rather, it left that to the trial court. Thus, both legally and practically, SSM will not be the law in Connecticut until the trial court speaks. -Rrius (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from response to identical post at Template talk:Same-sex unions in the United States) I have no idea what your point about Lawrence is. I did not say the supreme court relied on anything the trial court had previously done; nor did I say anything other than the supreme court's decision in Kerrigan & Mock serves as the declaration that the ban on SSM is unconstitutional. What I was saying is that the supreme court, instead itself directing the executive to issue marriage licenses, left it for the trial court to do so. I used the word "legalize" to describe this because, to the extent it SSM can be said to be illegal, it is because the legislature says it is illegal for the executive to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Because "legalize" is so imprecise, it is easy to find different sources claiming different points in the process where someone or something "legalized" same-sex marriage. My point was not meant to get into this debate, but rather to get at the point of when same-sex marriage will actually become an institution in Connecticut. That is to say, when same-sex couples will actually be able to marry in Connecticut. -Rrius (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In the intro paragraph, we are told that in october 2010, "all" civil unions will be upgraded to full marriage status.
Later in the article, we are told that couples may elect to do this, voluntarily. These two are in clear disagreement, but both have sources cited? What is the correct way to reconcile these? Gushi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the sources said, because they were hosted AP news that expired, but I edited the paragraph to reflect my understanding of the law based on this source from the San Francisco Examiner:
On October 1, 2010, civil unions will cease to be provided and existing civil unions will be automatically converted to marriages. Until then, existing civil unions will be kept and couples may "upgrade" to marriage voluntarily.