CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Connecticut Plaintiffs, Lawyers, and Lawmakers Celebrate Reversal of DOMA

by | Jun 26, 2013 12:11pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Courts, Equality

Christine Stuart photo (Updated 1:55 p.m.) There were cheers and tears at the West Hartford home of Elizabeth Kerrigan and Jodie Mock when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday morning.

“Thank God for Justice Kennedy,” Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, exclaimed when the 5-4 decision was handed down.

Bye and her wife Tracey Wilson were the first gay couple to marry in Connecticut after the Supreme Court certified its 4-3 decision on Nov. 12, 2008. Another couple to marry that day in New Haven also celebrated the news of DOMA’s demise.

At a small gathering at Kerrigan’s home Wednesday, Bye and Wilson said they were excited about the possibility of filing their federal income tax return as a married couple. They currently have to file separately, which Bye said ends up costing them more. She said pension and Social Security benefits are also concerns that have been mitigated by the court’s decision.

“We no longer have to choose ‘other’,” Bye, an openly gay state lawmaker, said.

She said it wasn’t long ago, maybe a decade or so that in order to be “out” in public, Tracey and she would have to leave the state for fear of retribution from their employers. She said it wasn’t long ago that she feared running as an openly gay candidate, but public opinion is changing rapidly.

“This is the fastest civil rights movement ever because it’s all about love,” Bye said.

She said she knows heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals, but “we’re not so different.”

Christine Stuart photo Carol Buckheit, who worked for Love Makes a Family, the advocacy group behind Connecticut’s push for marriage equality, was also on hand Wednesday for the celebration.

“For me it’s especially significant because I’m engaged to be married,” Buckheit said.

So while it’s personal for Buckheit, it’s also a recognition that the gay rights movement has a long way to go. There are still more than 30 states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage.

Bye said even with the two or three lesbian attorneys in the room it’s still not clear whether a Pennsylvania couple can marry in Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is legal, and then enjoy those same rights under federal law when they return to Pennsylvania.

“To have the federal government come to a place to recognize us is huge,” Kerrigan said.

She said she could never understand why the government was “trying to withhold something that’s so hard to have.”

“Marriage is hard,” she added.

Christine Stuart photo As the lead plaintiff in the Connecticut case along with seven other couples, Kerrigan said today’s decision reversing DOMA “feels much grander to me.”

She said she’s just as emotional as she was when the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision, but she can’t help think about where it began.

Asked to explain where the movement started, Kerrigan joked “I started deep in the closet.”

Christine Stuart photo The 58-year-old said all she had to do was be honest with herself about who she was.

Bye said if everyone in the country was under the age of 30, then marriage equality would be a “no brainer.”

She said that was evident from the reaction of the three young boys at Kerrigan’s home Wednesday.

Kerrigan and Mock have two sons, Carlos and Fernandez, who had a neighborhood friend over watching the Scotus blog being projected on the wall in their dining room. The boys friend Leo used a baseball analogy to sum up the anxiety in the room as they waited for the decision to appear. He said it was like the bottom of the sixth inning and the home team is down by one run with runners on base and a batter in the box with a full count.

When the decision was handed down there were cheers, then tears, as the gravity of it began to sink in.

The Defense of Marriage Act “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government,” Kennedy wrote.

“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” Kennedy wrote. “By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive.”

The court also allowed a lower court ruling overturning Proposition 8 in California to stand and did not rule based on the merits of the case, which means same-sex marriage will be legal in California.

Gay marriage is currently legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia. Today’s ruling in the DOMA case may open the door for more states to move in that direction or at least that’s what the women celebrating at Kerrigan’s home Wednesday would like to see happen.

Connect with Christine:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(5) Archived Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 26, 2013  2:44pm

Prediction time:

I dont think this itself will have a big impact on society. Then someone or some group will go after churches to try to force them to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, and it will make for a bad time for gay couples. Some other group will also go for equal rights for three people to be married, and again it will backfire on gay couples.

The court failed and should have put the kibosh on these ideas in the ruling.

posted by: Lawrence | June 26, 2013  7:38pm

Hey there Joebigjoe, how’s that tarpit in your neck of the woods? See a lot of other fossils nearby??

Anyway, congrats to everyone else. And to think it was only 1957 when the Supreme Court said it was okay for people of different RACES races to marry…

WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court



388 U.S. 1

Loving v. Virginia



No. 395 Argued: April 10, 1967—- Decided: June 12, 1967


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 27, 2013  8:41am

Hey Lawrence. I said it wont have a big impact but predict that it wont be good if people push beyond this.

I guess if you think that this makes me ancient, it tells me that its OK in your mind to push beyond this into polygamy and into the sanctity of the church. My advice is don’t if that’s what you’re thinking.

If two gay people want to get married I’m not thrilled about it, but it doesn’t really impact my life. If now after winning this case, gay people want to push the churches through the government, and also advocate for multiple partner marriages then it will backfire horribly on gay people and gay marriage.

posted by: ASTANVET | June 27, 2013  8:53am

Lawrence - typical progressive - name calling to joe.  If this were truly about equality, why not go for a flat tax, most of this argument is about Federal benefits (i.e. tax rates and joint filings) - the REAL equality is to take the State (i.e. government) out of the marriage business.  I’m all about equality, but it is not equal for me to pay someone elses freight, not equal for me to subsidize other communities education, not equal for me to pay for a rail project, post office or other pork project in another state.  If you want to talk about equality, maybe we could peel back the onion just a little bit more than whatever ‘social justice’ program is on your agenda and talk about it.

posted by: Lawrence | June 28, 2013  7:47am

Both false arguments—typical right-wing blather—but nice try.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages