May 18, 2007  |  By: JOEY DIGUGLIELMO  | COMMENTS     

Connecticut’s civil unions law, which was signed by a Republican governor, grants gay couples many of the rights of marriage, but activists there are pushing for full equality. The latest round in that fight is now playing out in the courts.

Lawyers with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a gay legal group, argued a marriage case Monday in front of the state Supreme Court on behalf of eight gay couples there. The couples are collectively suing the state’s Department of Public Health because it wouldn’t issue them marriage licenses in 2004, the same year the suit was filed.

It predates the state’s civil unions law by a year, but GLAD and the couples say the existence of civil unions helps their case.

GLAD attorneys argued Monday during a three-hour session that it’s not fair to offer gays something different from what straight couples have. The two main arguments are equality and due process of law.

“It’s unfair,” said attorney Ben Klein after court recessed. “Civil unions are a separate institution.”

Kerrigan and Mock et. al. v. Connecticut Department of Public Health, named after two of the defendants (Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock), asks the court to declare unconstitutional any law denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and ordering public officials to issue licenses to the couples named.

Connecticut is one of only six U.S. states that offer either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington are the others. Hawaii has some marriage-type benefits for same-sex couples and straight unmarried couples who live together. Only Massachusetts offers gay marriage.

But civil unions, approved in Connecticut in 2005, haven’t proven a popular option. Between October 2005 and December 2006, 1,330 gay couples took advantage of the option. According to a USA Today report about civil unions, that’s just 18 percent of the same-sex couples counted in the 2000 census.

In Massachusetts, however, about 9,000 gay couples have been married, though some have been Rhode Island residents. But even though Massachusetts’ gay marriage law is being challenged — some lawmakers and conservatives are pushing for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage there — some say gay marriage in the state has opened a floodgate of expectations for gays in other states who feel they should have the same rights.

Several aspects of the court discussion followed angles gay rights advocates have heard and argued for years. At one point, attorney Jane Rosenberg, an assistant attorney general for the state, said the case wasn’t about sexual orientation discrimination since gays and lesbians can get married — just not to members of their own sex.

A few of the justices, though, said that wasn’t a realistic line of reasoning, especially if sexual orientation is immutable.

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general who’s defending the state, did not return calls seeking comment. Klein, though, said he thought the state presented a good case.

“I felt that the state attorneys did a fine job,” Klein said. “[Blumenthal] has been very professional and has performed his duty well.”

There’s also a sense among several of the key players that the arguments and litigation aren’t meant to be taken personally. For instance Dorothy Bean, town registrar of vital stats in Madison, Conn., was named a defendant in the case, as she’s the one who refused to give the gay couples the licenses initially.

“I was just the acting town clerk at the time,” Bean said. “And I was just doing my job.” Bean said she has no personal opinion on the lawsuit and realizes that being named is just a business matter. She didn’t appear in court Monday. Her employer — the state — is picking up the tab for her legal representation.

“It’s no personal beef against her,” Klein said. “That’s just who has to be named in these kinds of cases.”

Family group continues fight

Family Institute of Connecticut, a group that says it stands on the side of traditional marriage, values and morality, has taken an active role in fighting the case. The group has appealed a New Haven Superior Court decision that denied it intervener status in the case. That hasn’t stopped its representatives from getting involved.

Peter Wolfgang, director of public policy for Family Institute, said his group is just as interested in the case as if it were named, though the institute hasn’t had any contact with the attorney general.

“Our position is that we’re opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of social science evidence that came out in the ’90s and beyond that has concluded that children fare best when they’re in ...