Goodridge vs.

Department of Public Health

Facts: Seven same-sex couples, some of them with adopted children, were denied marriage licenses by Massachusetts town or city clerks. They filed action for declaratory judgment against Department and Commissioner of Public Health. They claimed that denying them of marriage licenses is against their equal protection and due process rights and that various circumstances in which the absence of the full legal protections of civil marriage has harmed them and their children. Issue/s: WON the policy and practice of denying marriage licenses to same sex couples violate numerous provisions of the state constitution. Held: (1) Marriage licensing statutes were not susceptible of interpretation permitting qualified same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Marriage definition should be interpreted according to the ordinary and approved usage of the language: legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife

Baker vs. State

Facts: Three same- sex couples, two of them have children, brought action against State, city, and town seeking declaratory judgment that refusal to issue them marriage licenses violated marriage statutes and State constitution. Issue/s: WON the State of Vermont can exclude same-sex couples from benefits and protections that it provides to opposite-sex couples. Held: The exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated common benefits clause of the constitution. Common benefits clause: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family or set of persons, who are part only of that community Marriage under the statutory scheme consists of a union between a man and a woman. State interest: (1) furthering the link between procreation and child rearing, (2) promoting a permanent commitment between couples for the security of their children, (3) maintain uniformity with other jurisdictions. Answers: (1) statute underinclusive because it extends to couples who do not intend to have children and are incapable to have children, same sex couples are granted opportunity to adopt or conceive through science, thus the exclusion treats persons who are similarly situated for the purposes of law differently; (2) same with heterosexual couples; (3) marriage between first cousins already violate this interest Relief: legislature to consider and enact implementing legislation in an orderly and expeditious fashion.

(2) Limitation of protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to individuals of opposite sexes lacked rational basis and violated state constitutional equal protection principles.

State interest: (1) providing a favorable setting for procreation, (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, and (3) preserving scarce State and financial resources. (4) avoid interstate conflict Answers: (1) Fertility is not a condition of marriage, no privileged form of intimacy or means of creating a family; (2) best interest of the child does not depend on parents sexual orientation, marital children reap a measure of family stability and economic security; (3) not true that same sex couples are more financially independent, benefits do not depend WON couples are financially dependent on each other. (4) each state is independent Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage for the same sex couples arbitrarily deprives them of membership in one of our communitys most rewarding and cherished institutions; this exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under the law. Regulatory authority must serve a legitimate purpose in a rational way. Relief: refine common law meaning of marriage.