Hernandez v. Robles

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtR. Smith
Citation7 N.Y.3d 338,855 N.E.2d 1
PartiesDaniel HERNANDEZ et al., Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, as City Clerk of the City of New York, Respondent. Sylvia Samuels et al., Appellants, v. New York State Department of Health et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Elissa Kane et al., Appellants, v. John Marsolais, as Albany City Clerk, et al., Respondents. Jason Seymour et al., Appellants, v. Julie Holcomb, as City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, et al., Respondents.
Decision Date06 July 2006

Page 1

855 N.E.2d 1
7 N.Y.3d 338
Daniel HERNANDEZ et al., Appellants,
v.
Victor L. ROBLES, as City Clerk of the City of New York, Respondent.
Sylvia Samuels et al., Appellants,
v.
New York State Department of Health et al., Respondents.
In the Matter of Elissa Kane et al., Appellants,
v.
John Marsolais, as Albany City Clerk, et al., Respondents.
Jason Seymour et al., Appellants,
v.
Julie Holcomb, as City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.

Page 2

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 3

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City (Susan L. Sommer, David S. Buckel and Alphonso David of counsel), and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Norman C. Simon and Darren Cohen of counsel), for appellants in the first above-entitled action.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner, Marilyn Richter and Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.

Richard E. Barnes, Albany, and Paul Benjamin Linton, North-brook, Illinois, for New York State Catholic Conference, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.

Roger B. Adler, P.C., New York City (Roger Bennet Adler of counsel), for New York State Conservative Party, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.

American Center for Law & Justice Northeast, Inc., New Milford, Connecticut (Vincent P. McCarthy and Kristina J. Wenberg of counsel), admitted pro hac vice, for City Action Coalition, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York City (Roberta A. Kaplan and Andrew J. Ehrlich of counsel), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (James D. Esseks and Sharon M. McGowan of counsel) and New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation (Donna Lieberman and Arthur Eisenberg of counsel), for appellants in the second above-entitled action.

Brian M. DeLaurentis, P.C., New York City (Brian M. DeLaurentis of counsel), for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association of Greater New York, Inc., amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York City (Martin Klotz, Joanna Rotgers and Jeffrey S. Siegel of counsel), for Women's Bar Association of the State of New York and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York City (Bonnie Steingart, Jonathan F. Lewis, Jennifer L. Colyer, Edward J. Jacobs and Tico A. Almeida of counsel), for Academy for Jewish Religion and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Ross D. Levi, Albany, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York City (Gary A. Bornstein of counsel), for Empire State Pride Agenda and others, amici curiae

Page 4

in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Jay Weiser, New York City, Lia Brooks, Robert H. Cohen, Allen Drexel, Bruce Wagner, Albany, William D. Frumkin, New York City, and Mark B. Wheeler, Ithaca, for Association of the Bar of the City of New York and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Norman L. Reimer, New York City, Ivan J. Dominguez, Kathryn Shreeves, Jean M. Swieca and H. Alexander Robinson, Washington, D.C., for New York County Lawyers' Association and another, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Ropes & Gray LLP, New York City (Douglas H. Meal of counsel), and Mary L. Bonauto, Boston, Massachusetts, admitted pro hac vice, for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York City (Joseph F. Tringali, Robert J. Pfister and Paul A. Saso of counsel), for Anti-Defamation League and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, New York City (Vivian L. Polak, Jonathan A. Damon, Paul H. Cohen, Kathryn S. Catenacci, Desiree A. DiCorcia, Angela M. Papalaskaris and Colin G. Stewart of counsel), for Association to Benefit Children and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Norman J. Chachkin, New York City, and Victor A. Bolden for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Suzanne B. Goldberg, New York City, Arnold & Porter LLP, New York City and Washington, D.C. (Robert C. Mason, Dorothy N. Giobbe, Joshua A. Brook, Jennifer L. Hogan, Helene B. Madonick, Christopher S. Rhee and Joshua I. Kaplan of counsel), and Costello Cooney & Fearon, PLLC, Syracuse (Samuel C. Young of counsel), for Suzanne B. Goldberg and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Genant Law Offices, Mexico (Robert Genant of counsel), and Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, Virginia (Rena M. Lindevaldsen of counsel), for Concerned Women for America and another, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Michael Whiteman, Heather D. Diddel and Andrew M. Johnson of counsel), Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C. (Paul M. Smith, William M. Hohengarten and Eric Berger of counsel), and Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle for American Psychological Association and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, Arizona (Byron J. Babione, Benjamin W. Bull, Glen Lavy and Christopher R. Stovall of counsel), for Family Research Council, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.

Kindlon and Shanks, P.C., Albany (Terence L. Kindlon and Kathy Manley of counsel), for appellants in the third above-entitled action.

John J. Reilly, Corporation Counsel, Albany (Patrick K. Jordan of counsel), for John Marsolais, respondent in the third above-entitled action.

Bixler & Stumbar, Ithaca (L. Richard Stumbar and Elizabeth J. Bixler of counsel), and LoPinto, Schlather, Geldenhuys & Salk (Mariette Geldenhuys and Diane V. Bruns of counsel), for appellants in the fourth above-entitled action.

Page 5

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff, Andrea Oser and Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), for Attorney General, intervenor in the first above-entitled action, and for New York State Department of Health and another, respondents in the second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Barth, Sullivan & Behr, Buffalo (Laurence D. Behr of counsel), and Marriage Law Foundation, Orem, Utah (Monte N. Stewart of counsel), for United Families International, amicus curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Shapiro Forman Allen Sava & McPherson LLP, New York City (Laurie McPherson and Jason Vigna of counsel), Alicia Ouellette, Albany, and Stephen Clark for Alicia Ouellette and others, amici curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Stephen P. Hayford, Albany, and Joshua K. Baker, Manassas, Virginia, for James Q. Wilson and others, amici curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Coti & Sugrue, New York City (Ralph Coti of counsel), for Alliance for Marriage, amicus curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York City (Kristin D. Kiehn, Eliza M. Sporn, Sally S. Pritchard and Jennifer E. Spain of counsel), for Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. and others, amici curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Ruta & Soulios, LLP, New York City (Steven Soulios of counsel), for Pastor Gregory L. Wilk and others, amici curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

Law Offices of Brian W. Raum, P.C., New York City (Brian W. Raum of counsel), for Dr. Paul McHugh, M.D., and another, amici curiae in the first, second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

OPINION OF THE COURT

R.S. SMITH, J.


We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiffs and petitioners (hereafter plaintiffs) are the members of 44 same-sex couples. Each couple tried unsuccess-fully to obtain a marriage license. Plaintiffs then began these four lawsuits, seeking declaratory judgments that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the State Constitution. Defendants and respondents (hereafter defendants) are the license-issuing authorities of New York City, Albany and Ithaca; the State Department of Health, which instructs local authorities about the issuance of marriage licenses; and the State itself. In Hernandez v. Robles, Supreme Court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor; the Appellate Division reversed. In Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, Matter of Kane v. Marsolais and Seymour v. Holcomb, Supreme Court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor, and the Appellate Division affirmed. We now affirm the orders of the Appellate Division.

Discussion
I

All the parties to these cases now acknowledge, implicitly or explicitly, that the Domestic Relations Law limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. Some amici, however, suggest that the statute can be

Page 6

read to permit same-sex marriage, thus mooting the constitutional issues. We find this suggestion untenable.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Domestic Relations Law, which govern marriage, nowhere say in so many words that only people of different sexes may marry each other, but that was the universal understanding when articles 2 and 3 were adopted in 1909, an understanding reflected in several statutes. Domestic Relations Law § 12 provides that "the parties must solemnly declare . . . that they take each other as husband and wife." Domestic Relations Law § 15(1)(a) requires town and city clerks to obtain specified information from "the groom" and "the bride."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 practice notes
  • Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of N.J., Nos. 13–1713
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2013
    ...amendment alone was sufficient to affirmatively authorize sports wagering—the Sports Wagering Law was required. Cf. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1, 5–6 (2006) (rejecting as “untenable” a construction of a domestic relation law, silent on the matter of the ......
  • Perry v. Brown, Nos. 10–16696
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2012
    ...that these groups have historically been denied those rights.’ ” Id., 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d at 428–30 (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 381, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1 (2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)). The court concluded its due process analysis by rejecting the argume......
  • DeBoer v. Snyder, Nos. 14–1341
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 6, 2014
    ...towards same-sex couples”); Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571, 635 (2007) (no reason to “infer antipathy”); Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1, 8 (2006) (those who favor the traditional definition are not “irrational, ignorant or bigoted”); Andersen ......
  • Bldg. & Realty Inst. of Westchester & Putnam Cntys. v. New York, 19-CV-11285(KMK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 14, 2021
    ...protection violation under both the federal and State constitutions, which are analyzed under the same standard. See Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 9 (N.Y. 2006) ("[W]e have held that our Equal Protection Clause 'is no broader in coverage than the Federal provision.'"). [39] G-Max Plain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • In the Matter of The Marriage of J.B. And H.B. In Re State , No. 05-09-01170-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 8, 2010
    ...has inferred that New York's general marriage statutes, adopted in 1909, limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1, 6 (2006). Because New York has no clear declaration of a public policy forbidding same-sex marriages, some New ......
  • Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison Cnty., Docket Nos. 05–6408–cv (L)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 20, 2011
    ...(per curiam); People ex rel. Newcomb v. Metz, 64 A.D.2d 219, 222, 409 N.Y.S.2d 554, 556 (3d Dep't 1978). But see Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 362, 855 N.E.2d 1, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770 (2006) (R.S. Smith, J., plurality opinion) (citing cases involving criminal defendants or prisoners in whic......
  • Obergefell v. Wymyslo, Case No. 1:13–cv–501.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • December 23, 2013
    ...same-sex marriage is not constitutionally protected as fundamental in either their state or the Nation as a whole”); Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1, 9 (2006) (“The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right ... The right to marry someone of the s......
  • N.Y. State United Teachers v. State, 963-13
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 23, 2014
    ...Protection Clauses in the Federal and New York State Constitutions 46 Misc.3d 264are protective of the same rights. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 362, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1 (2006). As noted in oral argument, plaintiffs are asking this Court to make a decision that “flies in th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • LEGITIMIZING ILLEGITIMACY IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 6, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 882 (Vt. 1999); Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 956 (Mass. 2003); Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting). For a more in-depth discussion, see Melissa Murray, What's So New About the New Illegitimacy, 20 J. ......
  • GLIMPSES OF REPRESENTATION-REINFORCEMENT IN STATE COURTS.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 36 Nbr. 2, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...Id. at 1158. (46.) Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006); Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007); Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E. 2d 1 (N. Y. 2006). (47.) Andersen, 138 P.3d at 974; Conaway, 932 A.2d at 611-613. (48.) I develop this idea in Sehacter, supra note 27, at 1182-90. ......
  • AN UNFORTUNATE MISSTEP: THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' REJECTION OF AID-IN-DYING IN MYERS V. SCHNEIDERMAN.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 81 Nbr. 4, June 2018
    • June 22, 2018
    ...of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. (1) See Myers v. Schneiderman, 85 N.E.3d 57, 60 (N.Y. 2017) (per curiam). (2) See Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 5 (2006) ; Id. at 34 (Kaye, C.J., dissenting) (criticizing the Court's decision that New York's constitution does not compel recognition of s......
  • PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 81 Nbr. 4, June 2018
    • June 22, 2018
    ...(33) Myers, 85 N.E.3d at 60. (34) Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. (35) Id. at 5. (36) Id. at 6. (37) See Myers, 85 N.E.3d at 60. (38) See Morris v. Brandenburg, 2016-NMSC-027, 376. P.3d 836, 841 (N.M. 2015); Myers, 85 N.E.3d at 61; Assemb. B. 10059, 239th Legis. Reg. Sess. [section]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT