AG Jepsen Files Brief, Calls On SCOTUS To Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality

by Categorized: Washington Date:
\"ctmarriage\"Conn. Attorney General George Jepsen has joined 12 other states and D.C. to file two briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of marriage equality in the two cases before them.  The two cases are Hollingsworth vs. Perry and U.S. vs. Windsor.

In the Perry case, Justices will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California law that banned same-sex marriage.  The attorney generals filed the amicus brief for that case Thursday. \”Proposition 8 fails the most basic of equal protection rights,\” they wrote, arguing the law did not not meet even the court\’s lowest standard of judicial review, which requires it to be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Rather, the brief argues, states have a greater interest in legalizing same-sex marriage.

\”Quite simply, Proposition 8 prevents gays and lesbians from fully realizing what this Court has described as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. This result is in clear conflict with our Constitution,\” they wrote in closing.

Friday the same group will file a brief on the Windsor case, challenging Section III of the Defense Of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman and prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even those performed in states where it is legal.
The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

4 thoughts on “AG Jepsen Files Brief, Calls On SCOTUS To Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality

  1. enness

    Marriage, like anything that has a meaning rooted in reality (not just how we collectively feel at this temporal moment), is inherently unfair to somebody. It’s a feature not a bug.

  2. Richard

    The Federal Case is weak The entire tax code would need changing if the government can’t encourage some behaviors over others.

    The states rights issue is more interesting.

    Some of the language and logic used also supports polygamy and polyandry. The general tenor, that government can’t define, limit, or scope marriage , will provide some interesting legal narratives

  3. Connecticut is Dying Too

    Wow, another case of the Obamanation trying to overpower states rights.

    Will anyone have any rights after this arseclown gets through with us? Thanks low information voters.

  4. justme

    Isn’t marriage rooted in religion and civil unions in government. Why do we need marriage for same sex couples while civil unions would resolve that relationship? Civilization has survived for thousands of years that way– so why change now?

Comments are closed.