Case Name: 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
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 378 N.J. Super. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARK LEWIS AND DENNIS WINSLOW; SAUNDRA HEATH AND CLARITA ALICIA TOBY; CRAIG HUTCHISON AND CHRIS LO-DEWYKS; 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 KOMOSIN-SKI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 378
Pages: 168–220

Head Matter:
875 A.2d 259
MARK LEWIS AND DENNIS WINSLOW; SAUNDRA HEATH AND CLARITA ALICIA TOBY; CRAIG HUTCHISON AND CHRIS LO-DEWYKS; 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 KOMOSIN-SKI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey-Appellate Division
Argued December 7, 2004
Decided June 14, 2005.
Before Judges SKILLMAN, COLLESTER and PARRILLO.
David S. Bucket (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione and Mr. Bucket, attorneys; Lawrence S. Lustberg and Jennifer Ching (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vec-chione), Mr. Bucket and Susan L. Sommer (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.), on the brief).
Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney; Mr. DeAlmeida, of counsel; Mr. DeAlmeida and Mary Beth Wood, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Messina & Laffey, attorneys for amicus curiae the New Jersey Catholic Conference, the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, the New Jersey Family Policy Council and Mr. and Mrs. David C. Heslington (Joshua K. Baker, Lincoln C. Oliphant and William C. Duncan, of counsel; Michael Behrens, on the brief).
Dennis M. Canfield, attorney for amicus curiae the Family Research Council (Glen Lavy, Byron Babione and Dale Schowengerdt {Alliance Defense Fund), of counsel; Mr. Canfield, on the brief).
Levow & Costello, attorneys for amicus curiae Legal Momentum (Jennifer Broum and Deborah Widiss (Legal Momentum), Elizabeth L. Rosenblatt and Douglas NeJaime (Irell & Manelld), of counsel; Kevin Costello, on the brief).
Blank Rome, attorneys for amicus curiae National Association of Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers New Jersey Chapter (Carolyn Polowy and Sherri Morgan, of counsel; Stephen M. Orlofsky and Jordana Cooper, on the brief).
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys for amicus 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, National Organization for Women of New Jersey, and the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund (Edward Barocas, on the brief).
Nashel, Kates, Nussman, Rapone & Ellis, attorneys for amicus curiae American Psychological Association and New Jersey Psychological Association (Paul M. Smith and William M. Hohengarten (Jenner & Block), and Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle (American Psychological Association), of counsel; Howard M. Nashel, on the brief).
Weinstein Snyder Lindemann Samo, attorneys for amicus curiae Professors of the History of Marriage, Families, and the Law (Suzanne B. Goldberg (Rutgers School of Law, Newark), of counsel; Jeffrey P. Weinstein, on the brief).
Latham & Watkins, attorneys for amicus 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) (.Alan E. Kraus, Richard S. Zbur, Stuart S. Kurlander, Charles J. Butler and Jeffrey R. Hamlin (Latham & Watkins), and Elizabeth A. Seaton (.Human Rights Campaign), on the brief).
Lowenstein Sandler, attorneys for amicus curiae City of Asbury Park (Douglas S. Eakeley, of counsel and on the brief).
Demetrios K. Stratis, attorney for amicus curiae Monmouth Rubber & Plastics Corp. and John M. Bonforte, Sr. (Mr. Stratis and Vincent P. McCarthy and Kristina J. Wenberg (American Center for Law & Justice, Northeast, Inc.), on the brief).
Campbell & Campbell, attorneys for amicus curiae United Families International and United Families New Jersey (Donald D. Campbell, Paul Benjamin Linton and Richard G. Wilkins, on the brief).
Anderl & Oakley, attorneys for amicus curiae Alliance for Marriage (David R. Oakley and Dwight G. Duncan, on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SKILLMAN, P.J.A.D.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the New Jersey Constitution compels the State to allow same-sex couples to marry. We conclude that the statutory limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex does not violate our Constitution.
Plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples. Defendants are state officials with supervisory responsibilities relating to local officials' issuance of marriage licenses. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that each couple applied for a marriage license in the municipality in which they reside, but the clerk refused to issue the license because New Jersey law does not authorize a marriage between members of the same sex. Plaintiffs claim that the denial of their applications for marriage licenses violates their rights of privacy and equal protection of the law protected by the New Jersey Constitution. Plaintiffs do not contend that New Jersey's marriage statutes authorize a marriage between members of the same sex or that the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex violates the United States Constitution. As relief for the claimed violations of their state constitutional rights, plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant state officials to provide them access to the institution of marriage on the same terms and conditions as a couple of the opposite sex.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. After oral argument, defendants' motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court issued a comprehensive written opinion rejecting plaintiffs' claims and upholding the constitutionality of New Jersey's statutory provisions that only allow members of the opposite sex to marry. In rejecting plaintiffs' claim that they have a fundamental right to marry and that the State violated this right by refusing to issue them marriage licenses, the court stated:
The right to marry has always been understood in law and tradition to apply only to couples of different genders. A change in that basic understanding would not lift a restriction on the right, but would work a fundamental transformation of marriage into an arrangement that could never have been within the intent of the Framers of the 1947 Constitution. Significantly, such a change would contradict the established and universally accepted legal precept that marriage is the union of people of different genders.
In rejecting plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the court stated:
Plaintiffs, like anyone else in the state, may receive a marriage license, provided that they meet the statutory criteria for marriage, including an intended spouse of the opposite gender. Plaintiffs are, in that sense, in the same position as all other New Jersey residents. The State makes the same benefit, mixed-gender marriage, available to all individuals on the same basis. Whether or not plaintiffs wish to enter into a mixed-gender marriage is not determinative of the statute's validity. It is the availability of the right on equal terms, not the equal use of the right that is central to the constitutional analysis. Plaintiffs seek not to lift a barrier to marriage, but to change its very essence.
Based on this opinion, the trial court entered final judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, L. 2003, c. 246, which confers substantial legal rights upon same-sex couples who enter into domestic partnerships corresponding in many respects to the rights of opposite-sex couples who marry. This new legislation, which was enacted on January 12, 2004 and became effective on July 10, 2004, L. 2003, c. 246, § 60, is based on legislative findings and declarations that "[t]here are a significant number of individuals in this State who choose to live together in important personal, emotional and economic committed relationships with another individual," N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(a); that' "[t]hese familial relationships, which are known as domestic partnerships, assist the State by their establishment of a private network of support for the financial, physical and emotional health of their participants," N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(b); and that "[bjecause of the material and other support that these familial relationships provide to their participants, the Legislature believes that these mutually supportive relationships should be formally recognized by statute, and that certain rights and benefits should be made available to individuals participating in them," N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(e). The Domestic Partnership Act also contains a legislative declaration that:
The need for all persons who are in domestic partnerships, regardless of their sex, to have access to these rights and benefits is paramount in view of their essential relationship to any reasonable conception of basic human dignity and autonomy, and the extent to which they will play an integral role in enabling these persons to enjoy their familial relationships as domestic partners and to cope with adversity when a medical emergency arises that affects a domestic partnership.
[N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(d).]
To accomplish these legislative objectives, the Domestic Partnership Act provides that members of the same sex who "have a common residence and are otherwise jointly responsible for each other's common welfare as evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property," N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4(b)(1), who "agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership," N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4(b)(2), and who satisfy the other statutory prerequisites of such a State-sanctioned union, see N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4(b)(3) to (9), are entitled to receive a Certificate of Domestic Partnership, N.J.S.A. 26:8A-8(b). Upon issuance of this certificate, a patient's domestic partner and his or her children have the same right of visitation in a health care facility as a patient's spouse or children. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.22. In addition, a domestic partner is authorized to consent to an autopsy upon the body of his or her partner, N.J.S.A. 26:6-50, and has the same right as a spouse to consent to donation of a deceased domestic partner's organs for statutorily approved purposes, N.J.S.A. 26:6-58(b)(1). The Domestic Partnership Act also amends the State's tax laws to give domestic partners the same exemption from the State's inheritance tax provided to married couples, N.J.S.A. 54:34 — 1(f); N.J.S.A. 54:34-2(a); N.J.S.A. 54:34 — l(j), the same $1,000 exemption from the State gross income tax that can be claimed for a spouse who does not file a separate return, N.J.S.A. 54A:3-1, and the right to claim a domestic partner as a "dependent" under the Gross Income Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54A:l-2(e). Moreover, a domestic partner of a State employee is entitled to the same benefits under the State pension laws and State Health Benefits Program as a spouse, N.J.S.A. 18A:66-2; N.J.S.A. 43:6A-3; N.J.S.A. 43:15A-6; N.J.S.A. 43:16A-1; N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.26; N.J.S.A. 53:5A-3, and private insurance companies that provide dependent coverage for health, hospital, medical and dental expenses benefits must provide such coverage for a covered person's domestic partner, N.J.S.A. 17:48A-7aa; N.J.S.A. 17:48D-9.5; N.J.S.A. 17:48E-35.26; N.J.S.A. 17B:26-2.1x; N.J.S.A. 17B:27-46.1bb; N.J.S.A. 17B:27A-7.9; N.J.S.A. 17B:27A-19.12; N.J.S.A. 26:25-4.27; N.J.S.A. 26:8A-11; N.J.S.A. 34:11A-20. In addition, the Act amends the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to —42, to extend the prohibitions of that statute to discrimination on the basis of domestic partnership status. L. 2003, c. 246, § 12.
As a result of enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act, which extends many of the economic benefits and regulatory protections of marriage to persons of the same sex who enter into domestic partnerships, plaintiffs may now avoid many of the adverse consequences of being denied the opportunity to marry alleged in their complaint, such as denial of the right to participate in family insurance plans, denial of hospital visitation rights, denial of the right to make health care decisions when their partner is incapacitated, denial of the right to bury and control the disposition of a partner's remains, and denial of the benefit of the protections against discrimination provided by the LAD, by entering into domestic partnerships. The record does not indicate whether any of the plaintiff couples have entered into or plan to enter into domestic partnerships because the case was heard in the trial court before enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act. Consequently, this ease does not involve any claim of a denial of constitutional rights to same-sex domestic partners on the ground that they are not afforded all the benefits and rights of opposite-sex married couples. Rather, plaintiffs' claim is that even if the Domestic Partnership Act conferred all the benefits and legal rights of marriage, the New Jersey Constitution would nevertheless compel recognition of same-sex marriage.
In reviewing the constitutionality of the statutes that limit marriage to members of the opposite sex, as in reviewing any other statute, we must keep in mind that those provisions "represent[] the considered action of a body composed of popularly elected representatives" and therefore are entitled to a strong presumption of validity. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth. v. McCrane, 61 N.J. 1, 8, 292 A.2d 545 (1972), appeal dismissed sub. nom., Borough of E. Rutherford v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 409 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 270, 34 L.Ed.2d 215 (1972). This presumption "can be rebutted only upon a showing that the statute's 'repugnancy to the Constitution is clear beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Hamilton Amusement Ctr. v. Verniero, 156 N.J. 254, 285, 716 A.2d 1137 (1998) (quoting Harvey v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 30 N.J. 381, 388,153 A.2d 10 (1959)), cert, denied, 527 U.S. 1021, 119 S.Ct. 2365, 144 L.Ed.2d 770 (1999). The personal views of the members of the court concerning "the wisdom or policy of a statute" should play no part in determining its constitutionality. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., supra, 61 N.J. at 8, 292 A.2d 545. A constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores. "To yield to the impulse to [invalidate legislation merely because members of the court disapprove of its public policy] is to subvert the sensitive interrelationship between the three branches of government which is at the heart of our form of democracy." Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland, 77 N.J. 347, 355, 390 A.2d 606 (1978), appeal dismissed sub. nom., Vornado, Inc. v. Degnan, 439 U.S. 1123, 99 S.Ct. 1037, 59 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979). Consequently, our personal views of the legislative decision to limit the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex are irrelevant. The only question is whether this legislative decision violates a specific constitutional provision.
Plaintiffs' claim of a constitutional right to recognition of same-sex marriage is based on article I, paragraph 1, of the New Jersey Constitution, which provides:
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Our Supreme Court has held that this paragraph confers state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Sojourner A. v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 177 N.J. 318, 332, 828 A.2d 306 (2003); Greenberg v. Kimmelman, 99 N.J. 552, 568, 494 A.2d 294 (1985). Plaintiffs invoke both of these rights in support of their challenge to the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex. We address plaintiffs' due process claim in section I of this opinion and their equal protection claim in section II.
I
Article I, paragraph 1, protects both procedural and substantive due process rights. See Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 99, 662 A.2d 367 (1995); Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 568-69, 494 A.2d 294. The substantive due process rights protected by this provision include the right of privacy. See Sojourner A., supra, 177 N.J. at 332-33, 828 A.2d 306; Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 567-68, 571-72, 494 A2d 294. This right of privacy "embraces the right to make procreative decisions . [and] the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual conduct." Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 571-72, 494 A.2d 294 (citations omitted).
Our Supreme Court has held that the due process and privacy protections of article I, paragraph 1, also include the right of members of the opposite sex to marry. Ibid. In fact, the Court has characterized this right as "fundamental." J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9, 23-24, 783 A.2d 707 (2001); In re Baby M., 109 N.J 396, 447, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988). However, the Court has never considered whether the New Jersey Constitution confers a right to marry upon members of the same sex.
This court indirectly rejected the view that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in a decision sustaining the validity of provisions of the State Health Plan that denied health benefits to same-sex partners that were extended to spouses of married public employees. Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters v. Rutgers, 298 N.J.Super. 442, 452-62, 689 A.2d 828 (App.Div.1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 48, 707 A.2d 151 (1998). Belying upon decisions in other jurisdictions that have rejected same-sex couples' claims of a constitutional right to marry, we concluded that the determination whether to extend the same benefits to same-sex partners as to spouses involves "political and economic issues to be decided by the elected representatives of the people." Id. at 462, 689 A.2d 828.
Other jurisdictions have expressly rejected constitutional challenges to statutes that limit the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex. See, e.g., Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. Maricopa, 206 Ariz. 276, 77 P.3d 451 (Ct.App.2003), review denied (Ariz.2004); Dean v. Dist. of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C.1995); Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Jones v. Hallaban, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky.Ct.App.1973); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed,.2d 65 (1972); In re Cooper, 187 AD.2d 128, 592 N.Y.S.2d 797, 799-801, appeal dismissed, 82 N.Y.S.2d 801, 604 N.Y.S.2d 558, 624 N.E.2d 696 (1993); Singer v. Haro, 11 Wash. App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, review denied, 84 Wash.2d 1008 (1974). In Singer, the court concluded that the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex "is based upon the state's recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children," 522 P.2d at 1195, and that "marriage is so clearly related to the public interest in affording a favorable environment for the growth of children that we are unable to say that there is not a rational basis upon which the state may limit the protection of its marriage laws to the legal union of one man and one woman," id. at 1197. Other courts that have rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex also have relied upon the role that marriage plays in procreation and in providing the optimal environment for child rearing. See Standhardt, supra, 77 P.3d at 461-64; Dean, supra, 653 A.2d at 333; Morrison, supra, 821 N.E.2d at 23-35; Nelson, supra, 191 N.W.2d at 186.
The only state supreme court decision that has declared the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex to be unconstitutional is Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003), which is discussed later in this opinion. See also Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004). In addition, the Vermont Supreme Court held that denial of the benefits incident to marriage to same-sex domestic partners violated the "common benefits" provision of the Vermont Constitution, but that this constitutional violation could be remedied by enactment of a domestic partnership act or other legislation that extends' the benefits that flow from marriage to same-sex couples. Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A2d 864, 886-87 (1999). The Vermont Legislature subsequently enacted legislation authorizing domestic partnerships to comply with this mandate. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15 § 1201-07 (2004). The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex established a sex-based classification that required strict scrutiny under equal protection analysis, Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), and on remand, a trial court declared this limitation to be violative of the Hawaii Constitution, but before the ease was brought back before the Hawaii Supreme Court, the electorate approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, Haw. Const, art. I, § 23. See William C. Duncan, Whither Marriage in the Law?, 15 Regent L. Rev. 119, 119-20 (2003).
Our Supreme Court has indicated that in determining whether a claimed right is entitled to protection as a matter of substantive due process, a court should "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.' " King v. S. Jersey Nat'l Bank, 66 N.J. 161, 178, 330 A.2d 1 (1974) (quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 493, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1686, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 520 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Similarly, the Supreme Court of the United States has recently reaffirmed that "the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.' " Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21,117 S.Ct. 2258, 2268,138 L.Ed.2d 772, 787-88 (1997) (citations omitted). The Court noted that confining constitutional protection to "fundamental rights found to be deeply rooted in our legal tradition . tends to rein in the subjective elements that are necessarily present in due-process judicial review." Id. at 722,117 S.Ct. at 2268,138 L.Ed.2d at 788.
Marriage between members of the same sex is clearly not a "fundamental right[ ] . deeply rooted in our legal tradition." To the contrary, as we observed in M.T. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 83-84, 355 A.2d 204 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 71 N.J. 345, 364 A.2d 1076 (1976):
[A] lawful marriage requires the performance of a ceremonial marriage of two persons of the opposite sex, a male and a female. Despite winds of change, this understanding of a valid marriage is almost universal____
. The historic assumption in the application of common law and statutory strictures relating to marriages is that only persons who can become 'man and wife' have the capacity to enter marriage.
Plaintiffs' claim that a right to marriage between members of the same sex may be found in article I, paragraph 1, of the New Jersey Constitution has no foundation in its text, this Nation's history and traditions or contemporary standards of liberty and justice. It certainly is an idea that would have been alien to the delegates to the 1947 Constitutional Convention who proposed this provision and to the voters who approved it. Although there has been a substantial liberalization of public attitudes towards the rights of homosexuals in the intervening fifty-eight years, there is no current public consensus favoring recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. In fact, in 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub.L. No. 104— 199,110 Stat. 2419, which provides that no State shall be required to give effect under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, to any other state's law that recognizes same-sex marriage, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738C, and that all Acts of Congress that refer to "marriage" or "spouse" shall be interpreted to apply only to mixed-gender couples, 1 U.S.C.A. § 7. And as previously discussed, our Legislature recently enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers substantial legal rights upon same-sex couples who enter into domestic partnership unions but stops short of recognizing the right of members of the same sex to marry.
Plaintiffs have failed to identify any source in the text of the New Jersey Constitution, the history of the institution of marriage or contemporary social standards for their claim that the Constitution mandates State recognition of marriage between members of the same sex. Plaintiffs describe marriage as simply a "compelling and definitive expression of love and commitment that can occur between two adults" — without any reference to the historical, religious or social foundations of the institution — and argue that because two members of the same sex have the same capacity as members of the opposite sex to "make a strong and meaningful lifetime commitment to each other," the State must extend the same recognition to same-sex marriage as a marriage between members of the opposite sex. However, our society and laws view marriage as something more than just State recognition of a committed relationship between two adults. Our leading religions view marriage as a union of men and women recognized by God, see Larry Catá Backer, Religion as the Language of Discourse of Same Sex Marriage, 30 Cap. U.L. Rev. 221, 234-36 (2002), and our society considers marriage between a man and woman to play a vital role in propagating the species and in providing the ideal environment for raising children. See George W. Dent, Jr., The Defense of Traditional Marriage, 15 J.L. & Pol., 581, 593-601 (1999); William C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage, 2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 153, 164-72 (2004); Monte Neil Stewart, Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 Canadian J. Fam. L., 11, 41-85 (2004).
Indeed, the very cases that plaintiffs rely upon for the proposition that there is a fundamental right to marry reflect these common understandings of the religious and social foundations of marriage that limit the institution to members of the opposite sex. For example, in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2265, 96 L.Ed.2d 64, 83 (1987), the Court noted that "many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; . and ., therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication." In Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 680, 54 L.Ed.2d 618, 629 (1978), the Court "recognized that the right 'to marry, establish a home and bring up children' is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause," and described marriage "as 'fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.' " (Citations omitted).
The conclusion that marriage between members of the same sex has no historical foundation or contemporary societal acceptance and therefore is not constitutionally mandated is supported by decisions in other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. In Standhardt, supra, 77 P.3d at 459, the court concluded that "[a]lthough same-sex relationships are more open and have garnered greater societal acceptance in recent years, same-sex marriages are neither deeply rooted in the legal and social history of our Nation or state nor are they implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Similarly, in Dean, the court concluded that "same-sex marriage is not a 'fundamental right' protected by the due process clause, because that kind of relationship is not 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' " 653 A.2d at 331 (quoting Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1938, 52 L.Ed.2d 531, 540 (1977)); see also Nelson, supra, 191 N.W.2d at 186 (noting that "[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.").
Plaintiffs argue that the State's contention that the essence of the institution of marriage is a State-sanctioned union between members of the opposite sex constitutes "circular reasoning," — a characterization adopted by the dissent in its discussion of decisions in other jurisdictions that have upheld the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex. See infra, 378 N.J.Super. at 204, 875 A.2d at 280-81. However, plaintiffs' argument proceeds along the same kind of circular path that they accuse the State of following. Plaintiffs start with the premise that there is no difference between a "compelling and definitive expression of love and commitment" between members of the same sex and a marriage between members of the opposite sex, and then argue from this premise that the State has failed to carry its burden of justifying the limitation of the institution of marriage to a man and a woman. But the significant difference between these arguments is that the State's argument is grounded on historical tradition and our nation's religious and social values, while plaintiffs' argument is based on nothing more than their own normative claim that society should give unions between same-sex couples the same form of recognition as marriages between members of the opposite sex.
The same form of constitutional attack that plaintiffs mount against statutes limiting the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex also could be made against statutes prohibiting polygamy. Persons who desire to enter into polygamous marriages undoubtedly view such marriages, just as plaintiffs view same-sex marriages, as "compelling and definitive expression^] of love and commitment" among the parties to the union. Indeed, there is arguably a stronger foundation for challenging statutes prohibiting polygamy than statutes limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex "because, unlike gay marriage, [polygamy] has been and still is condoned by many religions and societies." Dent, supra, 15 J.L. & Pol. at 628. Nevertheless, courts have uniformly rejected constitutional challenges to statutes prohibiting polygamy on the grounds that polygamous marriage is offensive to our Nation's religious principles and social mores. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 161-67, 25 L.Ed. 244, 248-51 (1878); Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-71 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849,106 S.Ct. 145, 88 L.Ed.2d 120 (1985); see also State v. Green, 99 P.3d 820 (Utah 2004). In Reynolds, the Court stated:
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people____[F]rom the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.
. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.
[98 U.S. at 164-65, 25 L.Ed. at 250.]
More recently, the Tenth Circuit concluded:
Monogamy is inextricably woven into the fabric of our society. It is the bedrock upon which our culture is built. In light of these fundamental values, the State is justified, by a compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing its ban on plural marriage to protect the monogamous marriage relationship.
[Potter, supra, 760 F.2d at 1070 (citation omitted).]
Plaintiffs' only response to the State's comparison of the justification for limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex with its limitation to a single man and a single woman is that "[t]hey do not challenge the 'binary nature of marriage' and indeed embrace the solemn statutory obligation of 'exclusivity.'" However, persons whose religions and cultural traditions condone polygamy, but disapprove of same-sex marriage, could just as easily say that they do not challenge the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex, only the requirement that marriage must be binary.
In sum, the right to marry is a fundamental right that is subject to the privacy protections of article I, paragraph 1, of the New Jersey Constitution. However, this right extends only to marriages between members of the opposite sex. Plaintiffs' claim of a constitutional right to State recognition of marriage between members of the same sex has no foundation in the text of the Constitution, this Nation's history and traditions or contemporary standards of liberty and justice. Therefore, we reject plaintiffs' claim under the substantive due process and privacy protections of the New Jersey Constitution.
II
We turn next to plaintiffs' equal protection claim. In determining whether the State has violated the equal protection guarantees of article I, paragraph 1, our courts employ a balancing test that considers "the nature of the affected right, the extent to which the governmental restriction intrudes upon it, and the public need for the restriction." Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 567, 494 A.2d 294. Thus, the "crucial" threshold step in the required constitutional analysis is identification of "the nature of the [claimed] right." Ibid.; see also Poritz, supra, 142 N.J. at 94, 662 A.2d 367.
In the decisions upon which plaintiffs construct their constitutional attack upon the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex, it was undisputed that the statute in issue affected a constitutional right. See Sojourner A., supra, 177 N.J. at 333, 828 A.2d 306 ("a woman's right to make procreative decisions"); Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 571-72, 494 A.2d 294 (the right of members of the opposite sex to marry); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 303-04, 450 A.2d 925 (1982) ("a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full-term or to undergo an abortion"); Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Farmer, 165 N.J. 609, 762 A.2d 620 (2000) (same). Consequently, the only question in those cases was "the extent to which the [challenged statute] intrude[d] upon [a recognized constitutional right], and the public need for the restriction." Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 567, 494 A.2d 294.
In contrast, the essential question in this case is whether same-sex couples have any constitutional right to marry. For reasons set forth at length in section I of this opinion, we are satisfied that only members of the opposite sex have a constitutionally protected right to marry. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their threshold burden to show the existence of an "affected right," and for that reason the State is not required to show that the "public need" for restrictions upon that right outweigh plaintiffs' interest in its exercise.
The primary federal decision upon which plaintiffs rely, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), rested upon the premise, derived from Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655,1660 (1942), that members of the opposite sex have a constitutionally protected right to marry. Proceeding on this premise, the Court invalidated a Virginia statute that prohibited a "white person" from marrying anyone other than another "white person" on the grounds that "restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment.]" Loving, supra, 388 U.S. at 12, 87 S.Ct. at 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1018. Noting that "[m]ar-riage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival[,]" the Court also held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause. Ibid, (quoting Skinner, supra, 316 U.S. at 541, 62 S.Ct. at 1113, 86 L.Ed. at 1660). However, nothing in Loving suggests that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from limiting the institution of marriage to a State-recognized union between a man and a woman. In fact, several years after Loving, when the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to that State's prohibition against marriage by members of the same sex in a decision that distinguished Loving on the ground that "there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex," Nelson, supra, 191 N.W.2d at 187, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from that decision "for want of a substantial federal question," 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65; see also Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 458 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 3494, 73 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1982). Subsequent Supreme Court decisions also indicate that the constitutionally protected right recognized by the Court is the right of members of the opposite sex to marry. See Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 95-96, 107 S. Ct. at 2265, 96 L.Ed.2d at 83; Zablocki, supra, 434 U.S. at 383-86, 98 S.Ct. at 679-81, 54 L.Ed.2d at 628-31; see also Standhardt, supra, 77 P.3d at 458 (noting that Loving "was anchored to the concept of marriage as a union involving persons of the opposite sex," and that "[i]n contrast, recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage.' ").
The only opinion by a member of the Court that directly addresses whether the Fourteenth Amendment may be found to compel recognition of a right of same-sex couples to marry is Justice Scalia's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 604-05, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2497-98,156 L.Ed.2d 508, 542-43 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting). In dissenting from the majority's holding that a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain types of intimate sexual conduct violated the Due Process Clause, he stated:
Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.
[539 U.S. at 604,123 S.Ct. at 2498,156 L.Ed.2d at 542.]
However, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion rejected this contention, stating:
[This case] does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.
[539 U.S. at 578,123 S.Ct. at 2484,156 L.Ed.2d at 525.]
Even more pointedly, Justice O'Connor stated in a concurring opinion that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a "legitimate state interest" and that "other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group." 539 U.S. at 585, 123 S.Ct. at 2487-88, 156 L.Ed.2d at 530. Therefore, there is nothing in Loving or Lawrence that indicates that the Fourteenth Amendment bars a state from prohibiting marriage between members of the same sex, and significantly, plaintiffs have disavowed reliance upon the United States Constitution in their attack upon this State's limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex.
In the only state supreme court decision that has held the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex to be violative of a state constitution, Goodridge, the court's plurality opinion starts with the premise that marriage is a social institution that reflects "[t]he exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other [that] nurtures love and mutual support[,]" 798 N.E.2d at 948, or as restated later in the opinion, "a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family," id. at 954. The opinion then frames the question in the case as whether the State has demonstrated a sufficient justification for withholding the benefits of marriage, as thus conceived, from same-sex couples. The opinion proceeds to consider the justifications relied upon by the State for limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples — "(1) providing a 'favorable setting for procreation'; (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as 'a two-parent family with one parent of each sex'; and (3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources" — and finds each one to be constitutionally inadequate. Id. at 961-68.
The essential premise of the Goodridge plurality opinion — that the institution of marriage is simply an "exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other," id. at 943 — constitutes a normative judgment that conflicts with the traditional and still prevailing religious and societal view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species and provides the ideal setting for raising children. Consequently, unlike Loving, Goodridge does not establish a right of equal access to marriage, regardless of race or any other invidiously discriminatory factor, but instead significantly alters the nature of this social institution. Indeed, the plurality opinion itself acknowledges that "our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries." Id. at 965.
The understanding of the nature of marriage as a State-recognized union between a man and a woman reflects the understanding of the delegates to the 1947 Constitutional Convention who proposed article I, paragraph 1, of our Constitution and the voters who approved it. This constitutional provision does not give a court the license to create a new constitutional right to same-sex marriage simply because its members may feel that the State should grant same-sex couples the same form of recognition as opposite-sex couples who choose to marry. Moreover, to whatever extent it may be appropriate to consider current social mores and values in interpreting the liberty and equality protections of article I, paragraph 1, there is no basis for concluding that our society now accepts the view that there is no essential difference between a traditional marriage of a man and woman and a marriage between members of the same sex. To the contrary, Congress's enactment in 1996 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the New Jersey Legislature's recent enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers substantial legal rights upon same-sex couples but stops short of recognizing the right of members of the same sex to marry, and the strongly negative public reactions to the decisions in Goodridge and in lower courts of other states that have held the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex to be unconstitutional, demonstrate that there is not yet any public consensus favoring recognition of same-sex marriage. Therefore, we reject plaintiffs' claim that the New Jersey Constitution requires extension of the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.
Although same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry, they have significant other legal rights. Same-sex couples may seek to adopt children together, see In re Application for Change of Name by Bacharach, 344 N.J.Super. 126,134, 780 A.2d 579 (App.Div.2001); their right to engage in sexual relations is protected by both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, see Lawrence, supra, 539 U.S. at 578,123 S.Ct. at 2484,156 L.Ed.2d at 525-26; Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 571-72, 494 A.2d 294; State v. Saunders, 75 N.J. 200, 214, 381 A.2d 333 (1977); and they may enter into domestic partnership unions under the Domestic Partnership Act that entitle them to many of the same legal benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. Moreover, domestic partners may assert claims that the due process and equal protection guarantees of article I, paragraph 1, of the New Jersey Constitution entitle them to additional legal benefits provided by marriage. See Baker v. State, supra, 744 A.2d at 869-86.
A time may come when our society accepts the view that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If there were such an evolution in public attitudes, our Legislature presumably would amend the marriage laws to recognize same-sex marriage just as it recognized the increasing public acceptance of same-sex unions by enacting the Domestic Partnership Act. However, absent legislative action, there is no basis for construing the New Jersey Constitution to compel the State to authorize marriages between members of the same sex.
Affirmed.
There also have been a number of state lower court decisions, mostly unpublished, that have concluded that the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex violated those states' constitutions. See, e.g., Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 Cl, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super.Ct. Feb. 27, 1998); Li v. State, No. 0403-03057, 2004 WL 1258167 (Or.Cir.Ct. Apr. 20, 2004). Several of those decisions were promptly followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. See, e.g., Alaska Const, art. I, § 25; Or. Const, art. XV, § 5a; see Li v. State, 338 Or. 376, 110 P.3d 91, 98 (2005) (recognizing that, as a result of the constitutional amendment in Oregon, the institution of marriage in that State is now limited to "opposite-sex couples.").
The Attorney General disclaims reliance upon promotion of procreation and creating the optimal environment for raising children as justifications for the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex. However, several amici curiae, including the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, the New Jersey Family Policy Council and the New Jersey Catholic Conference, argue that our current form of marriage provides an environment in which procreation may be embraced and the optimal condition established for child rearing. Although an amicus curiae is ordinarily limited to arguing issues raised by the parties, an amicus may present different arguments than the parties relating to those issues. See James v. Arms Tech., Inc., 359 N.J.Super. 291, 324, 820 A.2d 27 (App.Div.2003); Keating v. State, 157 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1963) (noting that an "amicus is not at liberty to inject new issues in a proceeding . [but] is not confined solely to arguing the parties' theories in support of a particular issue."). We also note that plaintiffs were afforded an adequate opportunity to answer those arguments; in fact, half of their reply brief is devoted to those arguments. Therefore, we consider the amici's arguments regarding procreation and child rearing to be properly before us. In any event, there is no need for us to determine the validity of those justifications for limitation of the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples. We only note that the historical and prevailing contemporary conception of marriage as solely a union between a single man and a single woman is based partly on society's view that this institution plays an essential role in propagating the species and child rearing.
For a general discussion of the institution of polygamous marriage, see Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 253-60 (1992).
This is not to suggest that there are no public interests served by the limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex. As discussed in section I, this limitation is deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions and contemporaiy religious and cultural values, and also supported by the public interests discussed in depth in Judge Parrillo's concurring opinion. See infra, 378 NJ.Super. at 197-200, 875 A.2d at 276-78. However, the State is not required to show that those interests outweigh a presumed right of same-sex couples to marry in order to defeat plaintiffs' equal protection claim.