Bennett H. Klein [Senior Attorney and AIDS Law Project Director, GLAD]: "The Kerrigan decision [PDF file] is significant as being the third judicial opinion in the country to rule that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates state constitutional provisions. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 Goodridge decision, there was almost a five year gap between the time that California in May and now Connecticut in October joined the ranks of states establishing marriage equality. These recent decisions have created new national momentum for marriage equality. In particular, I think these decisions will help pave the way for legislative gains for marriage equality which have not yet been realized.

I would point to three significant components of the Kerrigan decision. First, in very strong language, the Court declared that in light of the history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, civil unions have relegated same-sex couples to an "inferior status, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage," and sending a message that what same-sex couples have is not as significant as real marriage. Some states may still be tempted to authorize civil unions, rather than marriage, and this decision powerfully describes why a separate status for lesbian and gay citizens, even if it provides important tangible rights, is simply a vestige of past discrimination.

Second, Connecticut now joins California as the second state to rule that sexual orientation discrimination is entitled to heightened scrutiny in equal protection analysis. This is an historic breakthrough as virtually all final appellate courts in the past have rejected this argument. If this trend continues, it will be helpful in eradicating all forms of sexual-orientation-based discrimination, not just discrimination in marriage. Justice Palmer's majority opinion is the best roadmap to heightened scrutiny I have seen for other courts to follow.

Finally, the Kerrigan decision articulated a powerful point: It is not enough to give lesbian and gay couples equal benefits; the constitution requires equal citizenship."