 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baker v. State12/20/1999
Baker v. State (98-032)
[Filed 20-Dec-1999]
ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-032 NOVEMBER TERM, 1998
Stan Baker, et al. v. State of Vermont, et al.
APPEALED FROM: Chittenden Superior Court
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 and Dissenting:
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
Concurring:
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
James L. Morse, Associate Justice
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice
On Appeal from Chittenden Superior Court
November Term, 1998
Linda Levitt, 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 th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|