Case Title: Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-68-05

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). In a complaint filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, plaintiffs sought a declaration that laws denying same-sex marriage violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. They also sought injunctive relief compelling the defendant State officials to grant them marriage licenses. (The named defendants are Gwendolyn L. Harris, former Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, Clifton R. Lacy, former Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services, and Joseph Komosinski, former Acting State Registrar of Vital Statistics. For the purpose of this decision, they are being referred to collectively as the "State.") Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, entered summary judgment in the State's favor and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. In a split decision, the Appellate Division affirmed. Judge Stephen Skillman wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that New Jersey's marriage statutes do not contravene the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution. He determined that only the Legislature could authorize same-sex marriages. Appellate Division Judge Anthony Parrillo filed a concurring opinion. Although joining Judge Skillman's opinion, Judge Parrillo added his view of the twofold nature of the relief sought by plaintiffs -- the right to marry and the rights of marriage. He submitted that it was the Legislature's role to weigh the benefits and costs flowing from a profound change in the meaning of marriage. Appellate Division Judge Donald Collester, Jr., dissented. He concluded that the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 obligate the State to afford same-sex couples the right to marry on terms equal to those afforded opposite-sex couples. The matter came before the Court as an appeal as of right by virtue of the dissent in the Appellate Division. HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process. 1. As this case presents no factual dispute, the Court addresses solely questions of law. The Court perceives plaintiffs' equal protection claim to have two components: whether committed same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples, and, if so, whether they have a constitutional right to have their relationship recognized by the name of marriage. (pp. 19-21) 2. In attempting to discern the substantive rights that are "fundamental" under Article I, Paragraph 1, of the State Constitution, the Court has followed the general standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in construing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the asserted fundamental liberty interest must be clearly identified. In this case, the identified right is the right of same-sex couples to marry. Second, the liberty interest in same-sex marriage must be objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State. (pp. 21-25) 3. New Jersey's marriage laws, which were first enacted in 1912, limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The recently enacted Domestic Partnership Act explicitly acknowledges that same-sex couples cannot marry. Although today there is a national debate over whether same-sex marriages should be authorized by the states, the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 embraced same-sex marriage. (pp. 25-28) 4. Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution. (pp. 28-33) 5. The Court has construed the expansive language of Article I, Paragraph 1 to embrace the fundamental guarantee of equal protection, thereby requiring the Court to determine whether the State's marriage laws permissibly distinguish between same-sex and heterosexual couples. The test the Court has applied to equal protection claims is a flexible one that includes three factors: the nature of the right at stake, the extent to which the challenged statutory scheme restricts that right, and the public need for the statutory restriction. (pp. 34-36) 6. In conducting its equal protection analysis, the Court discerns two distinct issues. The first is whether same-sex couples have the right to the statutory benefits and privileges conferred on heterosexual married couples. Assuming that right, the next issue is whether committed same-sex partners have a constitutional right to define their relationship by the name of marriage. (p. 37) 7. New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "affectional or sexual orientation." In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2004, the Legislature added "domestic partnership status" to the categories protected by the LAD. (pp. 37-40) 8. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also outlawed in our criminal law and public contracts law. The Legislature, moreover, created the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category. In 2004, the Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers certain benefits and rights on same-sex partners who enter into a partnership under the Act. (pp. 40-42) 9. The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples. Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children. Further, even though same-sex couples are provided fewer benefits and rights by the Act, they are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership than opposite-sex couples entering a marriage. (pp. 43-48) 10. At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people. (p. 48) 11. The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships. (pp. 48-51) 12. In arguing to uphold the system of disparate treatment that disfavors same-sex couples, the State offers as a justification the interest in uniformity with other states' laws. Our current laws concerning same-sex couples are more in line with those of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut than the majority of other states. Equality of treatment is a dominant theme of our laws and a central guarantee of our State Constitution. This is fitting for a state with so diverse a population. Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for "pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." (pp. 51-56) 13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63) 14. In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society's changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64) 15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65) The judgment of the Appellate Division is MODIFIED and, as MODIFIED, is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ has filed a separate CONCURRING and DISSENTING opinion, in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. She concurs in the finding of the majority that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. She dissents from the majority's distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage. She also dissents from the majority's conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of "liberty" guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1. She is of the view that persons who exercise their autonomous liberty interest to choose same-sex partners have a fundamental right to participate in a state-sanctioned civil marriage. JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN's opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 68 September Term 2005 MARK LEWIS and DENNIS WINSLOW; SAUNDRA HEATH and CLARITA ALICIA TOBY; CRAIG HUTCHISON and CHRIS LODEWYKS; MAUREEN KILIAN and CINDY MENEGHIN; SARAH and SUYIN LAEL; MARILYN MANEELY and DIANE MARINI; and KAREN and MARCYE NICHOLSON-MCFADDEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; CLIFTON R. LACY, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services; and JOSEPH KOMOSINSKI, in his official capacity as Acting State Registrar of Vital Statistics of the New Jersey State Department of Health and Senior Services, Defendants-Respondents. Argued February 15, 2006 Decided October 25, 2006 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinions are reported at 378 N.J. Super. 168 (2005). David S. Buckel, a member of the New York bar, argued the cause for appellants (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, attorneys; Mr. Buckel, Susan L. Sommer, a member of the New York bar, Lawrence S. Lustberg and Megan Lewis, on the briefs). Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General argued the cause for respondents (Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. DeAlmeida and Mary Beth Wood, on the briefs). David R. Oakley submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Alliance for Marriage, Inc. (Anderl & Oakley, attorneys). Edward L. Barocas, Legal Director, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, and The National Organization for Women of New Jersey. Howard M. Nashel submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae American Psychological Association and New Jersey Psychological Association (Nashel, Kates, Nussman, Rapone & Ellis, attorneys). Franklyn C. Steinberg, III, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae The Anscombe Society at Princeton University. Douglas S. Eakeley submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae City of Asbury Park (Lowenstein Sandler, attorneys). Kevin H. Marino and John A. Boyle submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Asian Equality, Equality Federation, People for the American Way Foundation and Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force (Marino & Associates, attorneys; Paul A. Saso, of counsel). Mark L. Hopkins submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Clergy of New Jersey. Richard F. Collier, Jr., submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Family Leader Foundation (Collier & Basil, attorneys). Dennis M. Caufield submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Family Research Council. Leslie A. Farber and Thomas H. Prol submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Garden State Equality Education Fund, Inc. and Garden State Equality, LLC, a Continuing Political Committee (Leslie A. Farber, attorneys; Mr. Prol, of counsel). Alan E. Kraus submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), Family Pride Coalition, Freedom to Marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition (NJLGC), and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) (Latham & Watkins, attorneys). Kevin Costello submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Legal Momentum (Levow & Costello, attorneys). Cliona A. Levy submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, attorneys). Demetrios K. Stratis submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Monmouth Rubber & Plastics, Corp. and John M. Bonforte, Sr., (Demetrios K. Stratis, attorneys; Mr. Stratis and Vincent P. McCarthy, on the brief). Stephen M. Orlofsky and Jordana Cooper submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae National Association of Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers New Jersey Chapter (Blank Rome, attorneys). Steven G. Sanders submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae National Black Justice Coalition (Arseneault, Fassett & Mariano, attorneys). Robert R. Fuggi, Jr., submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae National Legal Foundation (Fuggi & Fuggi, attorneys). Michael Behrens submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae The New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, The New Jersey Family Policy Council and The New Jersey Catholic Conference (Messina & Laffey, attorneys). Debra E. Guston and Trayton M. Davis, a member of the New York bar, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae New Jersey Religious Leaders and National and Regional Religious Organizations in Support of Marriage (Guston & Guston, attorneys). Stuart A. Hoberman, President, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (Mr. Hoberman, attorney; Felice T. Londa, Andrew J. DeMaio, Gail Oxfeld Kanef, Robert A Knee, Scott A. Laterra and Thomas J. Snyder, on the brief). R. William Potter submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Princeton Justice Project and Undergraduate Student Government of Princeton University (Potter and Dickson, attorneys; Mr. Potter and Linda A. Colligan, on the brief). Michael P. Laffey submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Professors of Psychology and Psychiatry. Adam N. Saravay submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Professors of the History of Marriage, Families, and the Law (McCarter & English, attorneys; Mr. Saravay and Sydney E. Dickey, on the brief). Donald D. Campbell submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amici curiae United Families International and United Families-New Jersey (Campbell & Campbell, attorneys). Ralph Charles Coti submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae James Q. Wilson, Douglas Allen, Ph.D., David Blankenhorn, Lloyd R. Cohen, J.D., Ph.D., John Coverdale, J.D., Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Robert P. George, J.D., Harold James, Ph.D., Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D., Douglas W. Kmiec and Katherine Shaw Spaht (Coti & Segrue, attorneys). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. The statutory and decisional laws of this State protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. When those individuals are gays and lesbians who follow the inclination of their sexual orientation and enter into a committed relationship with someone of the same sex, our laws treat them, as couples, differently than heterosexual couples. As committed same-sex partners, they are not permitted to marry or to enjoy the multitude of social and financial benefits and privileges conferred on opposite-sex married couples. In this case, we must decide whether persons of the same sex have a fundamental right to marry that is encompassed within the concept of liberty guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. Alternatively, we must decide whether Article I, Paragraph 1 s equal protection guarantee requires that committed same-sex couples be given on equal terms the legal benefits and privileges awarded to married heterosexual couples and, if so, whether that guarantee also requires that the title of marriage, as opposed to some other term, define the committed same-sex legal relationship. Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental. Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this State s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process. [N.J. Const. art. I, 1.] The origins of Article I, Paragraph 1 date back to New Jersey s 1844 Constitution. See footnote 9 That first paragraph of our Constitution is, in part, a general recognition of those absolute rights of the citizen which were a part of the common law. King v. S. Jersey Nat l Bank, 66 N.J. 161, 178 (1974) (quoting Ransom v. Black, 54 N.J.L. 446, 448 (Sup. Ct. 1892), aff d per curiam, 65 N.J.L. 688 (E. & A. 1893)). In attempting to discern those substantive rights that are fundamental under Article I, Paragraph 1, we have adopted the general standard followed by the United States Supreme Court in construing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. We look to the traditions and [collective] conscience of our people to determine whether a principle is so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original) (quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 493, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 1686, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 520 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)); see also Watkins v. Nelson, 163 N.J. 235, 245 (2000); Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 120 (1995); State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628, 648 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939, 112 S. Ct. 1483, 117 L. Ed. 2d 625 (1992). Under Article I, Paragraph 1, as under the Fourteenth Amendment s substantive due process analysis, determining whether a fundamental right exists involves a two-step inquiry. First, the asserted fundamental liberty interest must be clearly identified. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2268, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 788 (1997). Second, that liberty interest must be objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State. See King, supra, 66 N.J. at 178; see also Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at 720-21, 117 S. Ct. at 2268, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 787-88 (stating that liberty interest must be objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (internal quotation marks omitted)). How the right is defined may dictate whether it is deemed fundamental. One such example is Glucksberg, supra, a case involving a challenge to Washington s law prohibiting and criminalizing assisted suicide. 521 U.S. at 705-06, 117 S. Ct. at 2261, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 779. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that the liberty interest at issue was not the liberty to choose how to die, but rather the right to commit suicide with another s assistance. Id. at 722-24, 117 S. Ct. at 2269, 138 L. Ed 2d at 789-90. Having framed the issue that way, the Court concluded that the right to assisted suicide was not deeply rooted in the nation s history and traditions and therefore not a fundamental liberty interest under substantive due process. Id. at 723, 728, 117 S. Ct. at 2269, 2271, 138 L. Ed 2d at 789, 792. The right to marriage is recognized as fundamental by both our Federal and State Constitutions. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383-84, 98 S. Ct. 673, 679-80, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 628-29 (1978); J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9, 23-24 (2001). That broadly stated right, however, is subject to reasonable state regulation. Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 572. Although the fundamental right to marriage extends even to those imprisoned, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 2265, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 83 (1987), and those in noncompliance with their child support obligations, Zablocki, supra, 434 U.S. at 387-91, 98 S. Ct. at 681-83, 54 L. Ed. 2d at 631-33, it does not extend to polygamous, incestuous, and adolescent marriages, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-1; N.J.S.A. 37:1-1, -6. In this case, the liberty interest at stake is not some undifferentiated, abstract right to marriage, but rather the right of people of the same sex to marry. Thus, we are concerned only with the question of whether the right to same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in this State s history and its people s collective conscience. See footnote 10 In answering that question, we are not bound by the nation s experience or the precedents of other states, although they may provide guideposts and persuasive authority. See Doe v. Poritz, supra, 142 N.J. at 119-20 (stating that although practice followed by a large number of states is not conclusive[,] . . . it is plainly worth considering in determining whether the practice offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental (internal quotation marks omitted)). Our starting point is the State s marriage laws. Plaintiffs do not dispute that New Jersey s civil marriage statutes, N.J.S.A. 37:1-1 to 37:2-41, which were first enacted in 1912, limit marriage to heterosexual couples. That limitation is clear from the use of gender-specific language in the text of various statutes. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 37:1-1 (describing prohibited marriages in terms of opposite-sex relatives); N.J.S.A. 37:2-10 (providing that husband is not liable for debts of wife incurred before or after marriage); N.J.S.A. 37:2-18.1 (providing release rights of curtesy and dower for husband and wife ). More recently, in passing the Domestic Partnership Act to ameliorate some of the economic and social disparities between committed same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples, the Legislature explicitly acknowledged that same-sex couples cannot marry. See N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(e). Three decades ago, Justice (then Judge) Handler wrote that [d]espite winds of change, there was almost a universal recognition that a lawful marriage requires the performance of a ceremonial marriage of two persons of the opposite sex, a male and a female. M.T. v. J.T., 140 N.J. Super. 77, 83-84 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 71 N.J. 345 (1976). With the exception of Massachusetts, every state s law, explicitly or implicitly, defines marriage to mean the union of a man and a woman. See footnote 11 Although today there is a nationwide public debate raging over whether same-sex marriage should be authorized under the laws or constitutions of the various states, the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution, much less the drafters of our marriage statutes, could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 embraced the right of a person to marry someone of his or her own sex. See, e.g., Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971) ( The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman . . . is as old as the book of Genesis. ), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1972); Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 2-3 (2000) (describing particular model of marriage deeply implanted in United States history to be lifelong, faithful monogamy, formed by the mutual consent of a man and a woman ); see also 1 U.S.C.A. 7 (defining under Federal Defense of Marriage Act the word marriage [to] mean[] only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife ). Times and attitudes have changed, and there has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State, as is evidenced by various laws and judicial decisions prohibiting differential treatment based on sexual orientation. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 (prohibiting discrimination on basis of sexual orientation); N.J.S.A. 26:8A-1 to -13 (affording various rights to same-sex couples under Domestic Partnership Act); In re Adoption of a Child by J.M.G., 267 N.J. Super. 622, 623, 625 (Ch. Div. 1993) (determining that lesbian partner was entitled to adopt biological child of partner). See generally Joshua Kaplan, Unmasking the Federal Marriage Amendment: The Status of Sexuality, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 105, 123-24 (2005) (noting that 1969 is widely recognized as the beginning of the gay rights movement, which is considered relatively new to the national agenda ). On the federal level, moreover, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. In Romer v. Evans, Colorado passed an amendment to its constitution that prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to afford homosexuals protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. 517 U.S. 620, 623-24, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 1623, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 860-61 (1996). The Supreme Court declared that Colorado s constitutional provision violated the Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause because it impos[ed] a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group and appeared to be motivated by an animus toward gays and lesbians. Id. at 632, 116 S. Ct. at 1627, 1628, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 865-66. The Court concluded that a state could not make a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Id. at 635, 116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 868. More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court invalidated on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds Texas s sodomy statute, which made it a crime for homosexuals to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. 539 U.S. 558, 562, 578, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2475, 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, 515, 525-26 (2003). The Court held that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause prevented Texas from controlling the destiny of homosexuals by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Id. at 578, 123 S. Ct. at 2484, 156 L. Ed 2d at 525. The Lawrence Court, however, pointedly noted that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. Ibid. In a concurring opinion, Justice O Connor concluded that the Texas law, as applied to the private, consensual conduct of homosexuals, violated the Equal Protection Clause, but strongly suggested that a state s legitimate interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage would allow for distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals without offending equal protection principles. Id. at 585, 123 S. Ct. at 2487-88, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 530 (O Connor, J., concurring). Plaintiffs rely on the Romer and Lawrence cases to argue that they have a fundamental right to marry under the New Jersey Constitution, not that they have such a right under the Federal Constitution. Although those recent cases openly advance the civil rights of gays and lesbians, they fall far short of establishing a right to same-sex marriage deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State. Plaintiffs also rely on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967), to support their claim that the right to same-sex marriage is fundamental. In Loving, the United States Supreme Court held that Virginia s antimiscegenation statutes, which prohibited and criminalized interracial marriages, violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2, 87 S. Ct. at 1818, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1012. Although the Court reaffirmed the fundamental right of marriage, the heart of the case was invidious discrimination based on race, the very evil that motivated passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 10-12, 87 S. Ct. at 1823-24, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1017-18. The Court stated that [t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Id. at 10, 87 S. Ct. at 1823, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1017. For that reason, the Court concluded that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 12, 87 S. Ct. at 1823, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1018. From the fact-specific background of that case, which dealt with intolerable racial distinctions that patently violated the Fourteenth Amendment, we cannot find support for plaintiffs claim that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under our State Constitution. We add that all of the United States Supreme Court cases cited by plaintiffs, Loving, Turner, and Zablocki, involved heterosexual couples seeking access to the right to marriage and did not implicate directly the primary question to be answered in this case. Within the concept of liberty protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution are core rights of such overriding value that we consider them to be fundamental. Determining whether a particular claimed right is fundamental is a task that requires both caution and foresight. When engaging in a substantive due process analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has instructed that it must exercise the utmost care before finding new rights, which place important social issues beyond public debate, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of [the] Court. Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267-68, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 787 (internal quotation marks omitted). In searching for the meaning of liberty under Article I, Paragraph 1, we must resist the temptation of seeing in the majesty of that word only a mirror image of our own strongly felt opinions and beliefs. Under the guise of newly found rights, we must be careful not to impose our personal value system on eight-and-one-half million people, thus bypassing the democratic process as the primary means of effecting social change in this State. That being said, this Court will never abandon its responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of all of our citizens, even the most alienated and disfavored, no matter how strong the winds of popular opinion may blow. Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, we cannot find that a right to same-sex marriage is so deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State that it ranks as a fundamental right. When looking for the source of our rights under the New Jersey Constitution, we need not look beyond our borders. Nevertheless, we do take note that no jurisdiction, not even Massachusetts, has declared that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the federal or its own constitution. See footnote 12 Having decided that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not end our inquiry. See WHS Realty Co. v. Town of Morristown, 323 N.J. Super. 553, 562-63 (App. Div.) (recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right, inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 489 (1999). We now must examine whether those laws that deny to committed same-sex couples both the right to and the rights of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples offend the equal protection principles of our State Constitution. (3) survivor benefits under New Jersey s Workers Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-13; (4) back wages owed to a deceased spouse, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.5; (5) compensation available to spouses, children, and other relatives of homicide victims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 52:4B-10(c), -2; (6) free tuition at any public institution of higher education for surviving spouses and children of certain members of the New Jersey National Guard, N.J.S.A. 18A:62-25; (7) tuition assistance for higher education for spouses and children of volunteer firefighters and first-aid responders, N.J.S.A. 18A:71-78.1; (8) tax deductions for spousal medical expenses, N.J.S.A. 54A:3-3(a); (9) an exemption from the realty transfer fee for transfers between spouses, N.J.S.A. 46:15-10(j), -6.1; and (10) the testimonial privilege given to the spouse of an accused in a criminal action, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17(2). In addition, same-sex couples certified as domestic partners receive fewer workplace protections than married couples. For example, an employer is not required to provide health insurance coverage for an employee s domestic partner. N.J.S.A. 34:11A-20(b). Because the New Jersey Family Leave Act does not include domestic partners within the definition of family member, N.J.S.A. 34:11B-3(j), gay and lesbian employees are not entitled to statutory leave for the purpose of caring for an ill domestic partner, see N.J.S.A. 34:11B-4(a). The disparity of rights and remedies also extends to the laws governing wills. For instance, a bequest in a will by one domestic partner to another is not automatically revoked after termination of the partnership, as it would be for a divorced couple, N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14. For that reason, the failure to revise a will prior to death may result in an estranged domestic partner receiving a bequest that a divorced spouse would not. There is also no statutory provision permitting the payment of an allowance for the support and maintenance of a surviving domestic partner when a will contest is pending. See N.J.S.A. 3B:3-30 (stating that support and maintenance may be paid out of decedent s estate to surviving spouse pending will contest). The Domestic Partnership Act, notably, does not provide to committed same-sex couples the family law protections available to married couples. The Act provides no comparable presumption of dual parentage to the non-biological parent of a child born to a domestic partner, N.J.S.A. 9:17-43, -44. See footnote 18 As a result, domestic partners must rely on costly and time-consuming second-parent adoption procedures. See footnote 19 The Act also is silent on critical issues relating to custody, visitation, and partner and child support in the event a domestic partnership terminates. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 (providing custody rights to divorced spouses). See footnote 20 For example, the Act does not place any support obligation on the non-biological partner-parent who does not adopt a child born during a committed relationship. Additionally, there is no statutory mechanism for post-relationship support of a domestic partner. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 (providing for spousal support following filing of matrimonial complaint). Contrary to the law that applies to divorcing spouses, see N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, -23.1, the Act states that a court shall not be required to equitably distribute property acquired by one or both partners during the domestic partnership on termination of the partnership. N.J.S.A. 26:8A-10(a)(3). Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are borne by their children too. With fewer financial benefits and protections available, those children are disadvantaged in a way that children in married households are not. Children have the same universal needs and wants, whether they are raised in a same-sex or opposite-sex family, yet under the current system they are treated differently. Last, even though they are provided fewer benefits and rights, same-sex couples are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership than opposite-sex couples entering into marriage. The Act requires that those seeking a domestic partnership share a common residence; prove that they have assumed joint responsibility for each other s common welfare as evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property; agree to be jointly responsible for each other s basic living expenses during the domestic partnership; and show that they have chosen to share each other s lives in a committed relationship of mutual caring. N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4(b)(1), (2), (6). Opposite-sex couples do not have to clear those hurdles to obtain a marriage license. See N.J.S.A. 37:1-1 to -12.3. Thus, under our current laws, committed same-sex couples and their children are not afforded the benefits and protections available to similar heterosexual households. JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. MARK LEWIS and DENNIS WINSLOW; SAUNDRA HEATH and CLARITA ALICIA TOBY; CRAIG HUTCHISON and CHRIS LODEWYKS; MAUREEN KILIAN and CINDY MENEGHIN; SARAH and SUYIN LAEL; MARILYN MANEELY and DIANE MARINI; and KAREN and MARCYE NICHOLSON-MCFADDEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; CLIFTON R. LACY, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services; and JOSEPH KOMOSINSKI, in his official capacity as Acting State Registrar of Vital Statistics of the New Jersey State Department of Health and Senior Services, Defendants-Respondents. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ, concurring and dissenting. I concur with the determination of the majority that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1[,] of the New Jersey Constitution. See footnote 29 Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). I can find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage, and therefore dissent from the majority s opinion insofar as it declines to recognize that right among all of the other rights and benefits that will be available to same-sex couples in the future. I dissent also from the majority s conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of liberty guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1. Ante at ___ (slip op. at 5-6). The majority acknowledges, as it must, that there is a universally accepted fundamental right to marriage deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people. Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). Yet, by asking whether there is a right to same-sex marriage, the Court avoids the more difficult questions of personal dignity and autonomy raised by this case. Under the majority opinion, it appears that persons who exercise their individual liberty interest to choose same-sex partners can be denied the fundamental right to participate in a state- sanctioned civil marriage. I would hold that plaintiffs due process rights are violated when the State so burdens their liberty interests. Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life s momentous acts of self-definition. [Goodridge v. Dep t. of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 954-55 (Mass. 2003).] Plaintiffs are no less eloquent. They have presented their sense of the meaning of marriage in affidavits submitted to the Court: In our relationship, Saundra and I have the same level of love and commitment as our married friends. But being able to proudly say that we are married is important to us. Marriage is the ultimate expression of love, commitment, and honor that you can give to another human being. By those individual and personal statements, plaintiffs express a deep yearning for inclusion, for participation, for the right to marry in the deepest sense of that word. When we say that the Legislature cannot deny the tangible benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but then suggest that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, is presumptively constitutional, ante at ___ (slip op. at 7), we demean plaintiffs claim. What we name things matters, language matters. In her book Making all the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law, Martha Minnow discusses labels and the way they are used: Human beings use labels to describe and sort their perceptions of the world. The particular labels often chosen in American culture can carry social and moral consequences while burying the choices and responsibility for those consequences. [Martha Minnow, Making all the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law 4, 6 (1990).] We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage. See footnote 30 Later, the Court reaffirmed that approach [because] it provided a . . . flexible analytical framework for the evaluation of equal protection and due process claims. Sojourner A., supra, 177 N.J. at 333. There, we restated the nature of the weighing process: In keeping with Chief Justice Weintraub s direction, we consider the nature of the affected right, the extent to which the governmental restriction intrudes upon it, and the public need for the restriction. [In so doing] we are able to examine each claim on a continuum that reflects the nature of the burdened right and the importance of the governmental restriction. [Ibid. (quoting Planned Parenthood, supra, 165 N.J. at 630).] Such a step reduces the discrimination, but falls far short of eliminating it. The institution of marriage is unique: it is a distinct mode of association and commitment with long traditions of historical, social, and personal meaning. It means something slightly different to each couple, no doubt. For some it is primarily a union that sanctifies sex, for others a social status, for still others a confirmation of the most profound possible commitment. But each of these meanings depends on associations that have been attached to the institution by centuries of experience. We can no more now create an alternate mode of commitment carrying a parallel intensity of meaning than we can now create a substitute for poetry or for love. The status of marriage is therefore a social resource of irreplaceable value to those to whom it is offered: it enables two people together to create value in their lives that they could not create if that institution had never existed. We know that people of the same sex often love one another with the same passion as people of different sexes do and that they want as much as heterosexuals to have the benefits and experience of the married state. If we allow a heterosexual couple access to that wonderful resource but deny it to a homosexual couple, we make it possible for one pair but not the other to realize what they both believe to be an important value in their lives. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-68 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court MARK LEWIS and DENNIS WINSLOW; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; et al., Defendants-Respondents. DECIDED October 25, 2006 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Albin CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION BY Chief Justice Poritz DISSENTING OPINION BY