Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Connecticut high court asked to hear civil union case
A story released today by the Associated Press reports that A retired Greenwich businessman has asked the state Supreme Court to dissolve a civil union he and his partner obtained two years ago in Vermont.
Glen Rosengarten, 54, filed a petition with the Supreme Court earlier this month after state Superior and Appellate court judges ruled they had no jurisdiction over civil union matters because Connecticut does not recognize same-sex unions.
Rosengarten and his former partner, Peter Downes of New York City, entered into a civil union in Vermont on New Year's Eve 2000. But their 15-year relationship ended shortly afterward.
Vermont would not dissolve the civil union because state law requires at least one party be a legal resident before family courts can rule on a dissolution. The law allows anyone to obtain a civil union license, which grants legal rights similar to those of marriage.
His lawyers, Gary Cohen of Greenwich and Kenneth Bartschi of Hartford, say Connecticut's lower courts do have jurisdiction to decide the matter.
''Because dissolving a civil union would not contravene public policy or violate a positive law, the lower courts erred in concluding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter,'' Cohen and Bartschi wrote.
They also said that the lack of a Connecticut law recognizing same-sex unions should not preclude the state from dissolving unions obtained in other states.
The attorneys also cited state statutes protecting the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
Among the laws they named were the 1991 Gay Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination, and the 2000 Co-Parent Adoption Law, which permits members of some same-sex couples to adopt children.
Cohen and Bartschi also argued in their Aug. 15 petition that the Superior Court has the jurisdiction to deal with contract claims.
''To the extent that a civil union creates a contract under Vermont law, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the ending of this contract,'' they wrote.
Cohen said Tuesday that he was confident the state's Supreme Court justices would take up the case when they return in the fall.
''I think they're likely to do it,'' he said. ''It's a matter of public interest and policy.''
