Christian Legal Group Asks Judge to Drop Conn. Gay Marriage Case

A Christian legal group based in Washington, D.C., is asking a Connecticut court to drop a lawsuit that would redefine marriage to include same-sex partners.

A Christian legal group based in Washington, D.C., is asking a Connecticut court to drop a lawsuit that would redefine marriage to include same-sex partners.

The American Center for Law and Justice issued a “friend of the court” document on Wednesday with a superior court in New Haven, Conn., asking the judge to dismiss the Kerrigan v. The State of Connecticut, et. al.case.

The case was filed in the New Haven court last year by seven homosexual couples who said “civil unions” that confer the same legal benefits of marriage were not enough for those who seek to have the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples and seek for society to recognize that their union is a marriage, denoting a life long commitment with the purpose, in several instances, of raising children.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Subscribe

“Their argument is all that’s needed for marriage is two individuals who seek an intimate relationship with each other, and their sex doesn’t matter,” said Vincent McCarthy, senior Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, in a released statement.

“But marriage was not established primarily for mutual gratification,” he added. “It was always grounded in the interest of the State in regulating the procreation, protection and growth of children and to ensure that they had a mother and father.”

When the plaintiffs issued their complaint last year, the benefits of marriage compared to those people considered unmarried under the law were not the same. For example, each partner in a relationship which had made a lifelong personal commitment to the other to support one another as a traditionally married couple could not enjoy each other’s retirement benefits without incurring additional taxes.

Another instance was mentioned that when one partner had undergone a life-threatening surgical procedure, the hospital would not allow the other partner immediate visitation rights because she was not immediate family.

In another occasion, the same couple could not obtain a construction loan because neither could qualify for it as separate individuals.

The plaintiffs say they want equal protection under the law and will seek to do so by asking that the judge declare that any laws or rules currently on the books denying same-sex couples from marrying should be called unconstitutional. They also want state employees to begin issuing marriage licenses.

“They want their legal status to match their personal commitment, and they want others – whether hospital staff, bank officers or tax authorities – to see them as the couple and family that they are,” the complaint read.

Since then, Connecticut has passed a law which recognizes civil unions, thus granting same-sex couples many of the same legal benefits that married couples enjoy.

However, gay marriage supporters say that they not only the law to recognize their relationship, but also that the relationships be accorded the same social standing as heterosexual marriages.

The case is still pending in court.