Title: Baker v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Baker v. State  (98-032); 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864

[Filed 20-Dec-1999]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-032

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1998

Stan Baker, et al.	  }	APPEALED FROM:
	                  }
	                  }
     v.	                  }	Chittenden Superior Court
	                  }	
State of Vermont, et al.  }
	                  }	DOCKET NO. 1009-97CnC	

	In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

The judgment of the superior court upholding the constitutionality of the
Vermont marriage statutes under Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont
Constitution is reversed.  The effect of the Court's decision is suspended,
and jurisdiction is retained in this Court, to permit the Legislature to
consider and enact legislation consistent with the constitutional mandate
described herein.
	

                                _______________________________________
	                        Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

	                        Concurring:
Concurring and Dissenting:
	                         _______________________________________
	                         John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
________________________________
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice	
                                 _______________________________________
	                         James L. Morse, Associate Justice

	                         _______________________________________
	                         Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-032

Stan Baker, et al.	                 Supreme Court

	                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                         Chittenden Superior Court

State of Vermont, et al.	         November Term, 1998

Linda Levitt, J.

       Beth Robinson and Susan M. Murray of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, and Mary Bonauto, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Boston,
  Massachusetts, for  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Eve Jacobs-Carnahan and
  Timothy Tomasi,  Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellee State.

       Timothy M. Eustace of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
  Defendants-Appellees Town of Shelburne and City of South Burlington.

       Gregg H. Wilson of Kolvoord, Overton & Wilson, Essex Junction, for
  Defendant-Appellee Town of Milton.

       Harvey Golubock, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont Human Rights
  Commission.

       Richard T. Cassidy of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy & Frame, P.C.,
  Burlington, and Evan Wolfson, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund,
  Inc., and Lawson M. Vicario and S. Elizabeth Foster of Gibson, Dunn &
  Crutcher LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Vermont Coalition for
  Lesbian and Gay Rights, et al.

       David Rath of Kohn & Rath, Hinesburg, for Amicus Curiae Professors of
  Legislation and Statutory Interpretation.

       Eileen M. Blackwood of Blackwood and Kraynak, P.C., Burlington, David
  Chambers, White River Junction, and Matthew Coles, American Civil Liberties
  Union Foundation, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Parents and Friends
  of Lesbian and Gay Men, et al.

       Peter M. Lawrence of Barr, Sternberg & Moss, P.C., Bennington, for
  Amici Curiae Vermont Organization for Weddings of the Same-Gender, et al.

  

       William M Dorsch of Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington,
  for Amici Curiae Vermont NOW, et al.

       Philip C. Woodward and Karen McAndrew of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew,
  P.C., Burlington, for Amici Curiae Vermont Psychiatric Association, et al.

       Hal Goldman, Burlington, for Amicus Curiae Take It To the People.

       J. Paul Giuliani of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, Montpelier, and
  Dwight G. Duncan,  North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, for Amici Curiae New
  Journey, et al.

       Robert H. Erdmann, South Burlington, Jay Alan Sekulow and John P.
  Tuskey, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Vincent P. McCarthy, New Milford,
  Connecticut, for Amicus Curiae The American Center for Law and Justice.

       Clarke A. Gravel of Gravel & Shea, Burlington, and Don Stenberg,
  Nebraska Attorney General, and L. Steven Grasz, Deputy Attorney General,
  Lincoln, Nebraska, for Amici Curiae State of Nebraska, et al.

       Jon R. Eggleston, Burlington, for Amicus Curiae Professors of Law and
  Jurisprudence.

       Duncan F. Kilmartin, Newport, and David R. Huggins, The National Legal
  Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee, for Amici Curiae Specialty Research
  Associates, et al.

       William M. O'Brien, O'Brien Law Offices, Winooski, Thomas E. McCormick
  of McCormick Fitzpatrick Kasper & Burchard, Burlington, and Von G. Keetch
  and Alexander Dushku of Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Amici
  Curiae Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, et al.

       John Fitzpatrick, Burlington, and David Zwiebel, New York, New York,
  for Amicus Curiae Agudath Israel of America.

       Duncan F. Kilmartin of Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, and Steven T.
  McFarland, Kimberlee W. Colby and Samuel B. Casey, Annandale, Virginia, for
  Amici Curiae Christian Legal Society, et al.

       Timothy J. O'Connor, Jr., O'Connor Law Office, Brattleboro, and David
  Orgon Coolidge, The Catholic University of America, Washington, District of
  Columbia, for Amici Curiae Hon. Peter Brady, et al.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.   May the State of Vermont exclude same-sex couples from
  the benefits  and protections that its laws provide to opposite-sex married
  couples?  That is the fundamental  question we address in this appeal, a
  question that the Court well knows arouses deeply-felt  religious, moral,
  and political beliefs.  Our constitutional responsibility to consider the
  legal merits  of issues properly before us provides no exception for the
  controversial case.  The issue before the  Court, moreover, does not turn
  on the religious or moral debate over intimate same-sex  relationships, but
  rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion of
  same-sex  couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married
  couples.

       We conclude that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont
  Constitution, which,  in pertinent part, reads,

       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 a part only of  that community,

  Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7., plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory
  benefits and protections  afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose
  to marry.  We hold that the State is  constitutionally required to extend
  to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that  flow from
  marriage under Vermont law.  Whether this ultimately takes the form of
  inclusion within  the marriage laws themselves or a parallel "domestic
  partnership" system or some equivalent  statutory alternative, rests with
  the Legislature.  Whatever system is chosen, however, must  conform with
  the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, 
  protection, and security of the law.

       Plaintiffs are three same-sex couples who have lived together in
  committed relationships

  for periods ranging from four to twenty-five years.  Two of the couples
  have raised children  together.  Each couple applied for a marriage license
  from their respective town clerk, and each  was refused a license as
  ineligible under the applicable state marriage laws.  Plaintiffs thereupon 
  filed this lawsuit against defendants -- the State of Vermont, the Towns of
  Milton and Shelburne,  and the City of South Burlington -- seeking a
  declaratory judgment that the refusal to issue them a  license violated the
  marriage statutes and the Vermont Constitution.  

       The State, joined by Shelburne and South Burlington, moved to dismiss
  the action on the  ground that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for
  which relief could be granted.  The Town of  Milton answered the complaint
  and subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiffs  opposed
  the motions and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.  The trial court
  granted the  State's and the Town of Milton's motions, denied plaintiffs'
  motion, and dismissed the complaint.   The court ruled that the marriage
  statutes could not be construed to permit the issuance of a license  to
  same-sex couples.  The court further ruled that the marriage statutes were
  constitutional because  they rationally furthered the State's interest in
  promoting "the link between procreation and child  rearing."  This appeal
  followed. (FN1)   

                           I.  The Statutory Claim

       Plaintiffs initially contend the trial court erred in concluding that
  the marriage statutes 

 

  render them ineligible for a marriage license.  It is axiomatic that the
  principal objective of statutory  construction is to discern the
  legislative intent.  See Merkel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 166 Vt. 311,  314,