7 N.Y.3d 338 (2006)

r

The New York Constitution does not compel the state to recognize same-sex marriages; whether to permit such marriages is a matter for the legislature to decide.

r

Summary

r

This case involved consolidated lawsuits from 44 same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York. They argued that the state’s Domestic Relations Law, which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the New York Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals held that the state constitution does not mandate the recognition of same-sex marriages, finding a rational basis for the traditional definition of marriage. The court deferred to the legislature to make any changes to the marriage laws.

r

Facts

r

Plaintiffs, 44 same-sex couples, were denied marriage licenses by various New York municipalities. These couples initiated lawsuits seeking a declaratory judgment that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional under the New York State Constitution.

r

Procedural History

r

The cases were consolidated and heard in various lower courts. In Hernandez v. Robles, the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Appellate Division reversed. In the other cases, the Supreme Court ruled for the defendants (municipalities and state) which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the cases for appeal.

r

Issue(s)

r

r
1. Whether the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution?

r

2. Whether the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the New York Constitution?

r

r

Holding

r

r
1. No, because there is a rational basis for the legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

r

2. No, because the classification does not violate equal protection, and the legislature has a rational basis for its decision.

r

r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the right to marry is a fundamental right, but the right to same-sex marriage is not