In 2005, Connecticut's lawmakers authorized civil unions for same-sex couples, promoting the move as the first by a legislature not working under a court mandate. (Earlier, California lawmakers had authorized "domestic partnerships" for gay or lesbian couples.)
In Friday's opinion, the state justices compared those civil unions to the discredited "separate but equal" doctrine used to justify racial segregation in the South before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954.
While calling the Legislature's effort "truly laudable," Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the court "cannot discount the plaintiffs' assertion that the Legislature . . . has relegated [same-sex couples] to an inferior status, in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage."
The three dissenters said this contentious issue should be decided by elected lawmakers, not judges.
"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," wrote Justice Peter Zarella in his dissent. "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then this is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, said she disagreed with the court's ruling but would abide by it. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut," she said. "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."
--
david.savage@latimes.com
Times staff writer Jessica Garrison in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
