CT Gov Rell Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage Ruling

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell ain’t happy about today’s gay marriage win. The politico, who in 2005 signed civil unions into law, today released a statement decrying the state Supreme Court’s decision, which said civil unions were unconstitutional:

I disagree with today’s State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate.

Though she doesn’t approve – and says the ruling doesn’t “reflect” her constituents’ views – Rell made clear that she will not support any efforts to reverse the ruling. She also thinks any fight would fail, which is good to hear.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #connecticut #gay stories and more


  • Mark

    Sounds like she’s just hedging her bets, trying to stave off any personal (i.e., political) backlash.

  • JJ

    She would have probably disagreed with the Emancipation Proclamation — liberty is for white people, after all — had she been alive at the time. I will not allow myself to make an age joke.

  • Molly

    Yeah, so equitable and just. It’s not like there are practical differences between Connecticut civil unions as defined by the law and actual marriage. Why, this is clearly no more than a semantic argument.

  • dizzyspins

    While I wont be inviting Gov Rell to my house for dinner any time soon, Im okay with her position. She supported civil unions and won’t try to overturn the court’s gay-marriage decision. I dont care what people’s personal beliefs are, just so long as they dont stand in my way.

  • fredo777

    Dumb heifer.

  • Charles J. Mueller

    Amen, dizzyspins. I too don’t give a good fig what anyone thinks, as long as they don’t try to take my rights away like the Fundies and the Mormans are campaigning for in California.


    I’m psyched, but I wouldn’t cry victory yet.

    “In Connecticut, a question is on the November ballot on whether to hold a constitutional convention. Supporters want to change the constitution to allow “direct initiatives,” which would potentially open the door for anti-gay rights groups to seek a ban on same-sex marriage.”

    And I don’t put anything pass politicians of either party, that includes Governor Rell .

  • RogerF

    Ok, now watch as McCain claims that Ayers and Obama are gay lovers. This Connecticut ruling is gonna exPLODE.

    Hey everyone in the McCain camp: Good luck with the job search.
    Finish them off, Barack: http://tinyurl.com/5f9l2d

  • lillaurel

    CHURCHILL-Y – the administration is against the constitution direct initiatives thing, thankfully.

  • baker

    Equitable and just? No, dear, unless we have the same rights, it’s still discrimination.

  • BillyBob Thornton

    I hope that the california and florida propositions fail. Do whatever you are able to help beat this attack from the fundamentalists to limit our freedoms and rights.


  • CitizenGeek

    I appreciate Rell being mature and realistic about this. She disagrees, but she’s obviously not anti-gay and she’s said she’s not going to fight it.

  • Alan down in Florida

    “Though she doesn’t approve – and says the ruling doesn’t “reflect” her constituents’ views”

    Excuse me, but since when are court rulings supposed to “reflect” constituent views? Court rulings are to “reflect” the law. The whole purpose of these courts is to insure that personal fiat does not trump THE LAW.

  • AZgaybe

    people with no lips shouldnt really speack should they? or is it?…even bother wearing lipstick

  • Brian Miller

    Count me in as one of those people who is amused by those who demand that courts “reflect constituents’ views.”

    Courts do one thing, and one thing only — enforce the law. The anti-gay marriage policy violated the Supreme Law of Connecticut — its Constitution — and so was struck down.

    If courts did nothing but consider “the opinions of constituents,” then black Americans in Alabama would still be going to “separate but equal” schools.

    That’s one reason why Obama’s support for civil union segregation is so ridiculous — if someone supported similar treatment for his daughters (black-only schools that are almost as good as schools for white students) as he supports for gays (civil unions that are almost as good as marriages), he and Michelle would be outspoken opponents. The Obamas have learned nothing from history.

  • Jaroslaw

    I can understand her RELIGIOUS beliefs differ with mine. But, Fredo777, Governors will be asked their positions, so calling her a dumb heifer isn’t helpful. What I would say is that it is a GREAT shame people can’t say something like “I personally disagree with SSM based on my RELIGION but as an elected official I find it difficult to support discrimination since the Constitution guarantees equality to citizens.”

  • fredo777

    Who said it needed to be helpful?

    This is an informal blog atmosphere where we mostly post our own opinions. At the time, I was upset about her statement + (admittedly) posted a reactionary, negative reply. I don’t apologize for it, but I will say that had I thought it over a bit longer, I’d have likely given a more fleshed-out response.

  • Jaroslaw

    I have typed about three responses to you F777 -and I can’t get it right – so just go with what I’m trying to say and not with each literal word – yes, you can vent if you want to by name calling – I think it lessens the debate – even though this is an informal blogosphere, we are trying to give each other food for thought, no? Otherwise it is a given that we all have our own personal opinions which do not always need to be expressed. Most Gay people might be angry for a moment and think she is a “dumb heifer” but don’t have to say it. What purpose does that serve?

  • fredo777

    It served the purpose of expressing what I felt at the time. As I said, it’s how I felt in that moment + I don’t apologize for it. Also, I can’t really concern myself too much with how the average person sees fit to express him/herself in a particular situation.

    Generally, though, I’m all for offering each other “food for thought”. If I said that every one of my posts on a blog was meaningful, pleasant, +/or “deep”, however, I’d be lying. I like to keep my responses predictably unpredictable.

Comments are closed.