OPPapers.com

Same Sex Marriage

Hernandez v. Robles
855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006)
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.
2/ Plaintiffs assume that they have the right to marry the person of their choice, and this right is a fundamental right. So, they argue that by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the New York Domestic Relations Law violates the Due Process Clause of the State Constitution. Another argument raised by plaintiffs is that the distinction made by the Domestic Relations Law between opposite-sex and same-sex couples deprives plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Plaintiffs imply that the legislation discriminates against them on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual preference which trigger heightened scrutiny.
3/ The defendants and respondents contend that various provisions of the New York Domestic Relations Law say in so many words that only people of different sexes may marry each other. They mean that the legislature clearly intend to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Like Goodridge v. Department of public health, the defendants also contend that marriage has been interpreted as the union of one man & one woman within Massachusetts’ statue. However, the Massachusetts defendants also raise the legal argument based on the definition of marriage in Black’s Law Dictionary and the history of marriage.
4/ The reasons which form the basis of the Court’s decision are: for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships, and it is better...