2008 Connecticut JP Conference Articles
Justices of the Peace of the U.S.
Durham Conference, Oct. 25: Middletown Press: JPs statewide welcome same-sex marriage

Bristol Conference, Nov. 8:   New Britain Herald:  Attorney General spells out new law

Norwalk Conference, Nov. 15: Norwalk Advocate: Blumenthal Lays Down New Law on Gay Marriages

New Haven Register, Nov. 30: Some JPs bristle at same-sex marriage law

 


JPs statewide welcome same-sex marriage

By JENNIFER SPRAGUE, Herald Press Staff 10/26/2008
DURHAM - Justices of the peace from throughout the state weighed in on the
issue of same-sex marriage Saturday at their annual conference, held at Durham
Town Hall.

Although town clerks were told by the state's Department of Public Health
that Tuesday is the official release date of the court's gay-marriage decision,
Ben Klein, attorney for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, told the
media Oct. 10 that same-sex couples will not be able to wed until mid-November.

Regardless of the effective date, town clerks have not been told when the
forms will be available or if and how civil unions will be transferred to
marriages.

"The only thing we learned is same-sex couples can now get married," said
Kim Garvis, town clerk in Durham.

On the day the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage,
Garvis said Durham, a town of 7,200 people, had a single request for a
marriage license. But her office did not - and still does not - have an
application form.

"The state hasn't given us what we need," she said. "If people come to our
office, we can't help them."

Justices have also not been told whether they will be required to marry gay
couples, as their colleagues in Massachusetts were.

"In my mind, if you're a JP you should marry everyone," Garvis said.

Saul Haffner, president of the Justice of the Peace Association, which ran
the conference, said the association does not require its members to marry any
couple, but they do abide by a code of ethics.

"In general, our belief is in personal freedom," he said.

Bettie-Jeanne Rivard-Darby, a justice of the peace from Ellington, said she
can't wait to marry same-sex couples, but she can understand why the decision
is up to individual justices of the peace. She said she occasionally turns
down heterosexual couples if she is not comfortable with the situation.

Rivard-Darby has performed eight civil unions and said she prefers uniting
same-sex couples.

"Heterosexual couples tend to take it for granted," she said. Not gay couples, she said. To them, "it's a gift."

Ernest Adams, a justice of the peace from Ledyard, has already scheduled his
first same-sex marriage ceremony, but acknowledged that if a justice is not
comfortable officiating at one, "it's going to come out in the ceremony."

For him, the law means treating all marriages the same, regardless of gender. "Equality," he said. "That's what the law is about - complete equality."

Beryl Weinstein, of Guilford, who presented during the conference to his
fellow justices of the peace about "Partners for Life: Officiating at Weddings
of Same Sex Couples," said he has already gotten two inquiries about same-sex
weddings.

Although he does not believe Connecticut should have a law requiring
justices of the peace to marry same sex couples, he said he is happy to officiate at
a marriage of two men or two women.

"I would hope Connecticut would be smarter than Massachusetts," he said. "I
think that's an individual decision. If you're against abortion, no one says
you have to have one."

Weinstein estimates that of the 1,500 justices of the peace in Connecticut
who perform weddings, about 75 percent are happy to do same-sex marriages.

"If they want to get married, what difference does it make to me?" he said.
"They should have the same right be married I had."

As for the other 25 percent, Weinstein, who is 82 years old, said, "If they
don't want to do it - don't."

"I'll do it," he said.

Two more conferences will be held for Connecticut justices of the peace in
the coming weeks, one in Bristol on Nov. 8 and one in Norwalk on Nov. 15.

Laura Minor, a Bristol justice of the peace, is scheduled to speak Nov. 8 at
Bristol City Hall about "Marrying Gay Couples: Using the Right Words."

Jennifer Sprague can be reached at jsprague@middletownpress.com or by
calling (860) 347-3331, ext. 222.

Attorney General spells out new law

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:26 PM EST
By LISA BACKUS, Herald staffaff

BRISTOL - State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had a message for the nearly four dozen Justices of the Peace who attended an annual conference at city hall Saturday: when it comes to marriage, same-sex couples now have the same protection against discrimination as other groups.

"If you have a question about how the law applies, think about how the law applies to religion," Blumenthal said. "It would be the same as saying I don't marry Catholics, or I don't marry whites. No public official can discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. Same-sex marriages now fall in the same category. It's the law."

Blumenthal appeared as part of an annual conference sponsored by the Justice of the Peace Association, founded in 2005 to provide better information and instruction to JPs, who not only perform marriages but a variety of other legal functions.

The event and two others like it were organized by Saul Haffner, president and founder of the association, who said there weren't enough opportunities for JPs to get updated information on law changes. "You can get a letter from the state, but does that really explain it?" he said. "This gives people a chance to hear about it and discuss it."

Haffner said the programs, including one held in Durham Oct. 25 and one scheduled in Norwalk Nov. 15, were already in place when the state Supreme Court handed down the ruling that same sex couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples in Connecticut.

"We had to shuffle but we felt it was important to get the information out there," Haffner said. "People had questions on how it was to be applied and we were able to provide the state a venue to get the information out."

The day also included several other speakers but it was Blumenthal's meaningful discussion about the legalities involved in same-sex marriages that drew the most discussion and questions. One JP admitted that she was afraid she might feel uncomfortable but another pointed out she could seek the advice of Love Makes A Family, a group that works to raise awareness of same-sex couples, to become more familiar with the issue.

Blumenthal admitted that he has received overwhelmingly positive responses and questions from JPs about the ruling. But he also said there are still questions as to how the ruling will affect civil unions and what consequences a JP would face if accused of discrimination by refusing to marry a same-sex couple.

"The legislature may address some of these issues on the technical fronts," he said. "But my guess is we are going to seek to answer these questions as you raise them and we encounter them."

Bloomfield JP Angela Hauptman said she had relatively few marriages and tends to oversee documents instead but she appreciated the information. "I think it was very helpful and it's good to hear what other people have to say," she said. I think the speakers were particularly good and it's good to know what other people are doing and to be able to learn from them."


Blumenthal Lays Down New Law on Gay Marriages

By John Nickerson
Posted: 11/20/2008 12:57:56 PM EST

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told nearly 40 justices of the peace Saturday he does not expect the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages to be overturned.

At the fourth annual Conference of Connecticut JPs at the Norwalk Inn & Conference Center, Blumenthal said he does not see the Connecticut Constitution being amended to ban gay marriages. Not only would the state legislature need a two-thirds majority for the change and a statewide public vote held to ratify a ban, such an amendment also would involve rewriting the constitution's equal protection clause, Blumenthal said.

In its 4-3 decision to allow same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court held that the state's civil union laws violated the constitution's equal protection clause, which guarantees that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law, Blumenthal said.

A ban seems all the more unlikely because polls indicate a majority of Connecticut residents accept the ruling, Blumenthal said.

California's same-sex marriage law was scrapped during a Nov. 4 referendum. Blumenthal said he would not take a personal stand on the Supreme Court decision because he doesn't want anyone to think his actions are guided by personal beliefs.
"My job is to enforce the law. I'm not pro or con. I have feelings like anyone else, but I have never articulated them in any public gathering," he said. "We are going to obey the law, and we are going to enforce it."

Blumenthal also addressed the personal beliefs of the justices of the peace by saying he knew that during their careers they have told people they are "unavailable" to perform wedding ceremonies.

They may have been unavailable because they didn't like the parents of those getting married or thought the bride and groom were too young to wed, Blumenthal said.

But he said declining to marry someone because they object to same-sex marriages is against the law.

"You cannot refuse to marry any couple for discriminatory reasons, because they are a same-sex couple, any more than you can refuse because they are Catholic or white or black. And the reason is, you folks are public officials," Blumenthal said.

Calling the justices of the peace "positive and constructive" on the same-sex marriage issue, Blumenthal said he knew that some have been quoted as saying they would not perform the ceremony.

"But if there are those folks out there, I haven't found them," he said.

Association President Saul Haffner, who lives in Westport, said he had no problem performing gay weddings, though he has heard one or two fellow justices of the peace say they would decline because it was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Norwalk Justice of the Peace Joseph Tamburri said, "I agree with it if it is the law. We should not discriminate and I don't think the justices of the peace in Connecticut do discriminate. I'm very open-minded."

New Canaan Justice of the Peace Elise Klein, who spoke to the group about confronting discomfort in weddings, said she previously told officials that if they weren't comfortable doing civil union ceremonies, they should advise the couple to find someone else to marry them.

With that option barred by law, Klein suggested talking to the couples about the language of their vows, particularly as it concerns how each party will be addressed.

Of the 37 justices of the peace in attendance, eight raised hands when Klein asked how many have performed civil unions since the law was enacted in October 2005.

No hands went up when she asked whether any had yet performed a same-sex marriage, though Klein said she performed New Canaan's first one Friday.


John Nickerson is a staff writer for the Stamford Advocate, a sister paper of the New Canaan News~Review.

Some JPs bristle at same-sex marriage law

Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:39 AM EST
By Lauren Garrison, Register Staff

Some state residents responded to the recent court ruling that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry with joy, others with dismay.

But justices of the peace, elected officials and others authorized to perform marriages in the state are prohibited from refusing to perform same-sex weddings for discriminatory reasons, no matter their personal feelings.

Those justices of the peace opposed to same-sex marriages represent a small minority, but a vocal one, said Saul Haffner, president of the Justice of the Peace Association LLC.

When the decision legalizing gay marriage in the state was first announced, several JPs voiced “really intense disagreement with the decision” and said they would not perform same-sex weddings, Haffner said.

But when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal spoke at JP conferences around the state earlier this month, he made it clear that as public servants, JPs “have to carry out public policy. Public policy now is to honor same-sex marriages,” Haffner said.

The first vow in the Justice of the Peace Association’s code of ethics is, “To execute the statutes of the state in which I am empowered, as promised when I took the oath of office.”

For some JPs and other officials authorized to perform marriages, following state law on gay marriage is in direct conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.

“My convictions are such that I do not believe in same-sex marriages, therefore I don’t believe that I should be forced to give up my rights to accommodate someone else’s rights (who) wants to get married,” said Nicholas Kydes, a Norwalk JP. “Why is it OK for the minority of the people to demand that their philosophy or their way of life be accepted by the majority of people? I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, so why should they force their beliefs on me? Why should the state force me to accept something which I am totally against?”

If a same-sex couple asked Kydes to perform their wedding, “my response would be that I recommend that they seek to find another justice of the peace — that I could not do it,” he said.

Blumenthal said that “a justice of the peace is entitled to his or her personal feelings and is also entitled to refuse to marry same-sex couples. But then that person should resign as a justice of the peace, just as a state official should resign if he or she believes they can’t uphold the Constitution or the statutes of our state. We take an oath to put aside personal feelings and follow and enforce the law as state officials.”

Blumenthal pointed out that he’s never shared his personal feelings on the subject of same-sex marriage to avoid the perception that his beliefs were influencing the way he performed his job.

He stressed that JPs are entitled to turn down a request to marry any individual couple — because the JP is busy, or just doesn’t get along with the couple — but may not refuse to perform a marriage for discriminatory reasons, whether pertaining to race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation.

“I think that justices of the peace are agents of the state and should be required to follow the state’s anti-discrimination laws,” said Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a nonprofit organization advocating rights for same-sex couples. “If they didn’t believe in interracial marriage, they should not be allowed to discriminate and not marry that couple. If they don’t believe that same-sex couples have the right to civil marriage, they should not be able to discriminate in that area, either.”

Haffner, the JP Association president, disagreed. “My personal philosophy is centered on individual freedom,” he said. “As much as I welcome the individual freedom of couples to get married, in my opinion, JPs should have the individual freedom to say ‘we don’t want to do it.’”

He added, “But I realize it’s against the law to do so.”

Elise Klein, a JP from New Canaan, has led workshops at JP conferences for the past three years on civil unions. Each year, she asked the group if they felt uncomfortable performing civil unions for same-sex couples, and each year several hands would go up, she said. When she held a workshop on same-sex marriages at this year’s conference, no JPs admitted to feeling uncomfortable performing same-sex marriages.

Klein attributed this change to an understanding among JPs that they are prohibited from discriminating against same-sex couples.

According to Blumenthal, JPs were similarly prohibited from refusing to perform civil unions for discriminatory reasons when they became available in the state in 2005. However, this was not Klein’s understanding, and other JPs interviewed said they believed they were not required to perform civil unions.

Blumenthal said he hadn’t heard any complaints regarding JPs who had refused to perform civil unions.

Klein also believes some JPs who initially felt uncomfortable with civil unions have since grown to accept them, along with same-sex marriages.

But Barbara Jay, vice president of the Justice of the Peace Association, said a handful of JPs who were willing to perform civil unions have indicated they do not plan on performing same-sex weddings because of their religious convictions.

“Nobody’s going to (perform same-sex weddings) if they’re not happy about it,” Jay said. “They’ll find a way to politely say, ‘I’m busy,’ or ‘I haven’t done them and you probably would be a lot happier with someone I can recommend.’”

Ernest Adams, a JP from Ledyard who is eager to perform same-sex weddings, pointed out, “I think people have a sufficient number of choices ... it’s not like there’s one justice of the peace per town.”

Love Makes a Family offers on its Web site a list of dozens of justices of the peace statewide happy to perform same-sex marriages. It has a separate list for clergy friendly to the cause. According to Stanback, the state has no jurisdiction to require clergy to perform same-sex weddings.

Though Adams believes it’s wrong for JPs to discriminate against same-sex couples, “if it were my marriage, I would want (an officiant) who was going to be smiling, who was going to be happy doing the ceremony,” he said.

Audrey Honig Geragosian, a New Britain JP, agreed, “I can’t think of anybody getting married who would want to have a reluctant officiant in charge of their ceremony.”

Moreover, if a JP declines a request from a same-sex couple to perform their marriage, she said, “There are no police on that subject. Who’s going to police your answer if you were to say no?”

“It’s really hard, or impossible, to know who’s not doing it because of conviction, because there are ways to get around it,” said Klein.

Should a couple decide to file a complaint, the state has not specified a penalty for JPs who discriminate in performing their duties, Blumenthal said. The couple could seek a court order requiring the JP to perform their wedding, he said, but since the law “does not require a particular justice of the peace to perform a particular marriage ceremony, there’s the question about whether a Superior Court could order the justice of the peace to marry a particular couple.”

The couple could also bring a federal action against the JP for denial of civil rights, which would potentially involve damages and a court order requiring the JP to obey the law, Blumenthal said. If the JP continued to act in a discriminatory manner, they could be held in contempt of court.