Courts & Tribunals

On 07 January 2011, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Shawn Raftopol, 40, has parenting rights, even though he is not the biological father, because the couple had a valid surrogacy agreement. The couple married legally in Massachusetts in 2008. Their twins, Sebastiann and Lukas, now 2, were born in Connecticut through in-vitro fertilization with a donor egg and a surrogate mother [C1.3], [C1.2], [R1.1]

State

On 01 October 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages no new civil unions being allowed after 30 September 2010 [R1.6].

In April 2005, Connecticut became the first state to approve civil unions without being forced by the courts [L1.5], [R1.4].

Previously

On 07 May 2002, the Senate approved a bill 30-6 to extend limited legal rights to same-sex couples [R1.3].

The law allows individuals to make medical decisions for their partners, such as when to withdraw life support. It also grants private visitation rights for same-sex couples in nursing homes and allows an individual to file wrongful death claims in the case of the murder of his or her partner [R1.3].

On 03 June 2002, Governor Rowland signed the Bill, which does not specifically refer to same-sex couples. The provisions came into effect 01 October 2002 [R1.2].

In April 2002, legislation granting limited rights to gay and lesbian couples was introduced in the Connecticut legislature [R1.1].

Cities & Towns

In October 2002, Hartford reportedly had a Domestic Partner Registry [R2.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 16 July 2014, the state Supreme Court ruled that Charlotte Stacey, a widow from Middletown, formerly of Norwalk, can sue a doctor for damages in a medical malpractice case for the loss of her spouse Margaret A Mueller's companionship and income, thus expanding the common-law claim for loss of consortium [C3.5], [R3.4].

In August 2002, State Superior and Appellate court judges ruled they had no jurisdiction to dissolve a civil union because Connecticut does not recognize same-sex unions [R3.3].

A petition was in the State Supreme Court to appeal the decisions [R3.2].

In February 2000, Arbitrator Roberta Golick ruled that the state was required to offer health benefits to employees in same-sex relationships and gave the state 30 days to act [R3.1].

State

Title 46a Human Rights, Chapter 814c Human Rights and Opportunities [L1.2]

Sec. 46a-81a - Sec.46a-81n. Sexual orientation discrimination […]

The above Sections make it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in associations of licensed persons [81b], employment [81c] , public accommodations [81d], housing [81e], credit practices [81f], state practices [81g], equal employment in state agencies [81h], services of state agencies [81i], job recruitment and placement services provided by state agencies [81j], licensing practices of state agencies [81k], educational and vocational programs of state agencies [81m], allocation of state benefits [81n]. Religious organizations are exempt [81p]

"Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality [Section 46a-81a]

In August 2001, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public and private employment was unlawful [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 17 November 2016 US District Judge Warren W Eginton denied a motion for summary judgment of the claim of Lisa Boutillier that Hartford Public Schools discriminated and retaliated against her based on her sexual orientation, ruling that Title VII can be interpreted to ban sexual orientation discrimination, despite prior contrary rulings by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, under whose jurisdiction his court is [C2.4], [R2.3].

On 18 November 2016, Superior Court Judge Edward Krumeich II denied a motion to dismiss the discrimination lawsuit brought by now former corrections officer Ernesto Velazquez against the state Department of Corrections, alleging discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation, ruling ''A reasonable jury may conclude the DOC was negligent and the co-workers' discriminatory conduct would be imputed to the DOC'' [R2.2].

In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ruled that a state law banning sex discrimination covers transgendered people [R2.1].

State

On 14 May 2018, Governor Malloy announced that he had signed Public Act 18-4 - An Act Concerning the Fair Treatment of Incarcerated Persons, that amongst several requirements, establishes standards of treatment and placement for inmates who have a gender identity that differs from their assigned sex at birth with effect from 01 July (Section 8) [R1.9].

On 01 June 2015, the Senate voted 32-3 in favor of bill HB 7006, that would allow any person who has undergone surgical, hormonal or other clinically appropriate treatment for gender transition to change their sex on their birth certificate [R1.8] (upon providing):

(1) A written request from the applicant, signed under penalty of law, for a replacement birth certificate to reflect that the applicant's gender differs from the sex designated on the original birth certificate; (2) a written statement by a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, or nurse licensed pursuant to chapter 370 or holding a current license in good standing in another state, or psychologist licensed pursuant to chapter 383 or holding a current license in good standing in another state, stating that the applicant has undergone surgical, hormonal or other treatment clinically appropriate for the applicant for the purpose of gender transition; and (3) if an applicant is also requesting a change of name listed on the original birth certificate, proof of a legal name change [L1.7].

On 05 July 2011, Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed HB6599 An Act Concerning Discrimination into law barring discrimination based on gender identity or expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and all other laws under the jurisdiction of the state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities [R1.6], [L1.5].

On 04 June 2011, the Senate passed House Bill 6599: An Act Concerning Discrimination in a 20–16 vote. The House passed the bill in a 77–62 vote last month. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy must now sign the bill before it can become law (effective 01 October 2011), which he has indicated he will do [L1.5], [R1.4].

Previously:

On 05 April 2011, the Judiciary Committee endorsed a bill that would add gender identity and expression to the state's non-discrimination statutes. Similar bills have been introduced several times since 2006 but have never won passage [R1.3].

On 30 March 2011, the judiciary committee postponed a vote on a controversial bill aiming to provide legal protection for transgender people [R1.2].

In May 2004, Connecticut joined seven other states that protect transgender people in hate crime laws when Republican Gov. John Rowland signed the legislation into law [R1.1].

Connecticut's hate crime law already enhances the penalties for crimes committed against people or their property due to ethnicity, religion, real or perceived race and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation was added into the law in 1987 [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ruled that a state law banning sex discrimination covers transgendered people [R2.1].

State

General Statutes of Connecticut, Title 53a Penal Code, Chapter 952 Penal Code: Offences [L1.3]

Sec. 53a-181j. Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the first degree: Class C felony.

(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the first degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person, causes serious physical injury to such other person or to a third person.

(b) Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the first degree is a class C felony.

Sec. 53a-181k. Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree: Class D felony.

(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person, does any of the following: (1) Causes physical contact with such other person, (2) damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of such other person, or (3) threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection, if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection will occur.

(b) Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree is a class D felony.

In May 2004, Connecticut joined seven other states that protect transgender people in hate crime laws when Republican Gov. John Rowland signed the legislation into law [R1.2].

In 1987, hate crimes based on sexual orientation became an aggravating circumstance [R1.1].

State

On 02 May 2017, the House of Representatives voted 141 to 8 to pass and send to the Senate a bill that would bar conversion therapy, the discredited practice of trying to change the sexual orientation of young homosexuals. Governor Dannel P Malloy applauded the strong bipartisan vote and promised his signature upon passage by the Senate [R1.3].

On 19 December 2013, the State Insurance Department issued Bulletin 1C-37 informing health insurance companies and like providers that deliver or issue individual and group health insurance policies within the state, that they are now required to cover treatments related to gender transition [D1.2], [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 10 January 2006, Margaret A Mueller and Charlotte Stacey sued for medical malpractice in a cancer misdiagnosis claim. Mueller died in 2009 and on 02 July 2010, her Estate was awarded $2.45M.

On 11 February 2008, the trial judge ruled that Charlotte Stacey could not recover loss of consortium damages because the plaintiffs had not been legally married prior to or during the dates of the alleged negligent acts. The Appellate Court (No. 32489, 27 December 2011) affirmed the trial judge's ruling [C2.3].

The case is before the Supreme Court, Stacey asserting that she and Mueller would have formalized their relationship if it were not for the unconstitutional deprivation of their right to do so under state law, as it existed at that time [C2.2], [R2.1].

National

Consensual sex between same-sex couples became lawful on 01 October 1971 [R1.1].

State

On 12 November 2008, same-sex couples attained the right to marry as a consequence of the decision of the Superior Court in Kerrigan and Mock v. Connecticut Department of Public Health on 10 October 2008 [R2.3].

In May 2004, Connecticut's marriage laws had reportedly not been analyzed since 1980, when the attorney general's office ruled that state statutes did not specifically define marriage [L1.5], [R1.4].

Consequently, it is unclear whether same-sex marriages in Massachusetts will be recognised in Connecticut. Connecticut has no statute declaring same-sex marriages void [R1.3].

In January 2003, the Judiciary Committee forwarded to the full General Assembly its review of the same-sex marriage issue, but did not make any specific recommendations [R1.2].

In March 2002, two bills, one to allow so-called civil unions and the other to legalize same-sex marriages, were required to be considered by the legislature's Judiciary Committee [R1.1]

Courts & Tribunals

On 31 July 2012, Judge Vanessa Bryant in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and violates the US Constitution's principles of equal protection because it denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who were married in states where such unions are legal [C2.6], [R2.5].

On July 2012, Judge Vanessa Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a request from the House Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to halt proceedings in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act [R2.4].

On 10 October 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a 4–3 decision in favor of eight gay couples who were the plaintiffs in Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state [R2.3].

Justice Richard Palmer scheduled a hearing for the morning of November 12th to enter the final judgment. It was anticipated that gay and lesbian couples would be able to get marriage licences immediately after the hearing [R2.2].

In December 2008, a Quinnipiac University poll, 52% of voters said they supported the Supreme Court and 39% opposed it, with 9% undecided [R2.1].

State

On 16 May, the House of Representatives voted 134-0 in favor of legislation (Substitute for SB 70) making veterans eligible for state benefits if they have been denied federal benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. The veteran's federal benefits must have also been reinstated. The Bill was sent to the Governor [R1.2].

On 24 April 2013, the Senate voted 34-0 in favour of legislation which would make veterans who have been denied federal benefits based on their sexual orientation, eligible for state benefits. They must also have had their federal benefits reinstated. The bill will now move to the Connecticut House [R1.1].

State

The state's adoption law allows gay couples to jointly adopt using the same process as married couples [R1.5].

Second-parent adoption is also lawful in Connecticut [R1.4]

Previously –

In May 2000, the state's Senate gave final legislative approval to the bill that would allow gays and other unmarried people to adopt their partners' children. Gov. John G. Rowland said he would sign the bill into law [R1.3].

In March 2000, the bill that would allow gays and other unmarried people to adopt their partners’ children was making its way through the General Assembly for a second time [R1.2].

Connecticut General Assembly, Title 45a Probate Courts & Procedure, Chapter 803 Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption [L1.1]

Sec. 45a-726a. Consideration of sexual orientation of prospective adoptive or foster parent. Notwithstanding any provision of sections 4a-60a and 46a-81a to 46a-81p, inclusive, the Commissioner of Children and Families or a child-placing agency may consider the sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive or foster parent or parents when placing a child for adoption or in foster care. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the Commissioner of Children and Families or a child-placing agency to place a child for adoption or in foster care with a prospective adoptive or foster parent or parents who are homosexual or bisexual.

Courts & Tribunals

On 07 January 2011, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Shawn Raftopol, 40, has parenting rights (including being named on the child's birth certificate), even though he is not the biological father, because the couple had a valid surrogacy agreement. The couple married legally in Massachusetts in 2008. Their twins, Sebastiann and Lukas, now 2, were born in Connecticut through in-vitro fertilization with a donor egg and a surrogate mother [C2.4], [C2.3], [R2.2]

In January 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state's adoption laws did not permit the adoption of a 6-year-old Ledyard boy by his biological mother's lesbian partner [R2.1].

State

On 07 May 2002, the Senate approved a bill 30-6 to extend limited legal rights to same-sex couples [R1.1].

The law will allow an individual to file wrongful death claims in the case of the murder of his or her partner [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 16 July 2014, the state Supreme Court ruled that Charlotte Stacey, a widow from Middletown, formerly of Norwalk, can sue a doctor for damages in a medical malpractice case for the loss of her spouse Margaret A Mueller's companionship and income, thus expanding the common-law claim for loss of consortium [C2.2], [R2.1].