Marriage Equality and LGBT Activism in Connecticut Oral History Collection

In 1991, Connecticut became the third state to pass a comprehensive anti-discrimination law concerning sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit. This law barred employers from refusing to hire a person, discharging them, or discriminating against employees because of their sexual orientation. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) ruled in November 2000 that transgendered people may be protected under the law’s prohibition of sex discrimination.

In October 2000, Connecticut passed a co-parent adoption law, which created a legal process for second parent adoption, regardless of gender. This law allows an existing parent (biological or adoptive) to agree to the adoption of his/her child by another person, including a same gender partner, who shares parental responsibility for the child.

In April 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed, “An Act Concerning Civil Unions” (Public Act 05-10), which made Connecticut the second state (after Vermont) to allow civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions are a legal status parallel to marriage at the state level, which allow committed same-sex couples to obtain the state level benefits of marriage.

On October 10, 2008, Connecticut joined Massachusetts and California to become the third state to allow same sex-couples to marry. The Connecticut Supreme Court released a ruling in the case, Elizabeth Kerrigan et al v. Commissioner of Public Health et al, overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, stating:

“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.”

For more information, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has information on LGBT rights in the state of Connecticut.