Baker v. Vermont – Gay Marriage
Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).
FACTS: Baker et al. (Ps) were three same sex couples who lived in committed relationships for periods of from 4 to 25 years. The plaintiffs applied for marriage licenses and were refused. The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit to compel the state to issue marriage licenses to them so that they might enjoy the same rights as married couples who lived together in committed relationships.
The State moved to dismiss their actions for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss and the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court ruled that the Vermont state marriage statutes could not be construed to permit the issuance of licenses to same sex couples and the plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE: Under a state constitution that guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally, must the state afford some equivalent of marriage and its status to same sex couples?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. Under a state constitution that guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally, the state must afford some equivalent of marriage and its status to same sex couples.
Our marriage statutes reflect the commonly accepted position that marriage is an institution for opposite sex couples. However, Ps’ argument is that this exclusion violates their right to the common benefit and protection of the law guaranteed in the Vermont Constitution. Our constitution and this clause differ dramatically from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our law and constitution have demanded that statutory exclusions from publicly conferred benefits and protections must be premised on an appropriate and overriding public interest.
When a statute is challenged under this clause, we first examine the statutory basis that distinguishes those protected by the law from those excluded from the State’s protections. Then we look to the purpose in drawing any classifications that include only some members of the community while excluding others. Ultimately, the court must ascertain if the omission of a part of the community from the benefit, protection, and security of the challenged law bears a reasonable relation to the governmental purpose. We must look to the significance of the benefits and protections of the challenged law, whether the omission of members of the community from the benefits and protections of the challenged law promotes the government’s state goals, and if the classification is significantly under-inclusive or over-inclusive.
The court held that under these facts, these laws exclude anyone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. It is undisputed that many couples marry for reasons other than procreation. Therefore, if these other reasons are significant, then the statutes are under-inclusive and they have no logical connection to the stated governmental goal.
A significant number of children are being raised by same sex couples and this statute provides no protection for those children. The benefits and protections of marriage go well beyond the issues related to child rearing and security for children. As these benefits are significant and important, exclusion from these benefits must be grounded on public concerns of significant weight, cogency, and authority that justice of the deprivation cannot seriously be questioned. Promoting a link between procreation and child rearing fails to support such exclusions.
There is no doubt that Ps are entitled to the same benefits and protections of the law. How the state legislature accomplishes that by adopting another system for same sex relationships other than marriage is for their exclusive consideration.
DISPOSITION: The judgment upholding the constitutionality of the marriage statutes is reversed and the decision of the court is suspended until the state legislature can act within the guidelines herein mentioned.