Hernandez v. Robles
| Citation | 7 N.Y.3d 338,855 N.E.2d 1 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2006 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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." Domestic Relations Law § 5 prohibits certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Varnum v. Brien
...must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself.'" Id. (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1, 33 (2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S.Ct. at 1629, 134 L.Ed.2d at 868 (rejecting "classifica......
-
Stern v. Cosby
...the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the New York Constitution compels recognition of same-sex marriage. 7 N.Y.3d 338, 356, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1 (2006). The plurality opinion clearly recognized, however, that social attitudes toward gay and lesbian New Yorkers had chang......
-
In re Marriage Cases
...and this understanding must inform our consideration of the relevant case law. (See Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 821 N.Y.S.2d at p. 783, 855 N.E.2d at p. 14, 2006 WL 1835429 (conc. opn. of Graffeo, J.) ["[T]o ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute ano......
-
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
...been subject to unique disabilities unrelated to their ability to contribute to society); Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 388, 855 N.E.2d 1, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770 (2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting) ("[o]bviously, sexual orientation is irrelevant to one's ability to perform or contribute"). In th......
-
Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits
...cert. granted , 81 U.S.L.W. 3116 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012) (No. 12-307); Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571, 630–34 (Md. 2007); Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 7 (N.Y. 2006); 2013] MARRIAGE, BIOLOGY, AND FEDERAL BENEFITS 1471 While there are various strains of the responsible procreation argument,......
-
LEGITIMIZING ILLEGITIMACY IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
...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. ......
-
Marriage facts.
...2006); Seymour v. Holcomb, 811 N.Y.S.2d 134 (App. Div. 2006); Kane v. Marsolais, 808 N.Y.S.2d 566 (App. Div. 2006); Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006); id. at 12 (Graffeo, J., concurring); id. at 22 (Kaye, C.J., dissenting); Washington: Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash......
-
The Equal Protection Clause
...v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Fairhurst, J., joined by Bridge, Owens & Chambers, JJ., dissenting); Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., joined by Ciparick, J., [467] See, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 63-67 (Haw. 1993); Hernandez v. ......