Garden State Equality v. Dow
82 A.3d 336, 2013 WL 6153269, 434 N.J. Super. 163 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a state constitution's equal protection guarantee requiring that same-sex couples be afforded all the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples, a state's denial of the title 'marriage' to same-sex couples is unconstitutional when that denial prevents them from accessing federal marital benefits.
Facts:
- In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris held that same-sex couples must be afforded all the rights and benefits of marriage under the state constitution.
- In response, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Civil Union Act, creating a parallel legal status for same-sex couples called 'civil unions' rather than amending the marriage statute.
- At that time, Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage for all federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman, denying federal marital benefits to all same-sex couples, regardless of state recognition.
- In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of DOMA.
- Following Windsor, numerous federal agencies (including the IRS, Department of Labor, and Office of Personnel Management) began extending federal marital benefits to same-sex couples, but limited eligibility only to those who were lawfully 'married' under state law.
- These federal agencies explicitly interpreted Windsor to exclude couples in state-recognized 'civil unions' or domestic partnerships from eligibility for federal benefits.
- As a direct result, same-sex couples in New Jersey, including the plaintiffs, were denied access to a wide range of federal benefits available to both opposite-sex married couples in New Jersey and same-sex married couples in other states.
Procedural Posture:
- Garden State Equality and six same-sex couples filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, against the State of New Jersey.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the New Jersey and U.S. Constitutions.
- The State filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court partially granted but allowed the state and federal equal protection claims to proceed.
- Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on their equal protection claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Jersey's statutory scheme, which permits civil unions for same-sex couples but denies them civil marriage, violate the equal protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which resulted in the extension of federal benefits only to same-sex couples who are legally married?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobson, A.J.S.C.
Yes. New Jersey's statutory scheme violates the equal protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution because, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor, it no longer provides same-sex couples with the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples. The court reasoned that the controlling precedent is Lewis v. Harris, which mandated that same-sex couples receive all rights and benefits of marriage. While Lewis permitted a parallel structure like civil unions, that was only constitutional so long as it provided equal benefits. After Windsor invalidated DOMA, federal agencies began extending benefits exclusively to couples who were legally 'married,' thereby excluding New Jersey's civil union partners. This development transformed the label 'civil union' from a mere difference in name into a direct cause of unequal treatment and the denial of concrete federal benefits. Because the state-created distinction now causes a constitutional harm by denying equal benefits, the only way to satisfy the Lewis mandate is to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples.
Analysis:
This decision demonstrates how a change in federal law can render a previously permissible state statutory scheme unconstitutional under the state's own constitution. It highlights the inherent instability of 'separate but equal' structures like civil unions, proving that such systems fail to provide true equality once tangible rights and benefits become tied to the specific legal term 'marriage.' The ruling effectively forced New Jersey to abandon its parallel relationship structure in favor of a unitary system, establishing a powerful precedent that the specific designation of 'marriage,' not just a list of associated rights, is essential for equal protection.
