Israel v. Allen
1978 Colo. LEXIS 727, 577 P.2d 762, 195 Colo. 263 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory prohibition on marriage between siblings related only by adoption violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Facts:
- Martin Richard Israel is the natural son of Raymond Israel, and Tammy Lee Bannon Israel is the natural daughter of Sylvia Bannon.
- On November 3, 1972, Raymond Israel and Sylvia Bannon married each other.
- At the time of the marriage, Martin was 18 and living in Washington, while Tammy was 13 and living with her mother in Colorado.
- On January 7, 1975, Raymond Israel legally adopted his stepdaughter, Tammy.
- This adoption made Martin and Tammy legally brother and sister, though they are not related by whole or half blood.
- Martin and Tammy subsequently desired to marry each other in the State of Colorado.
- The Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County denied Martin and Tammy a marriage license.
- The denial was based on a Colorado statute prohibiting marriage between a brother and sister, whether the relationship is by blood or by adoption.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Richard Israel and Tammy Lee Bannon Israel (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in the District Court of Jefferson County.
- The district court found the portion of the marriage statute prohibiting marriage between adopted siblings unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection.
- The district court severed the words 'or by adoption' from the statute.
- The Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County (Defendant) appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
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 a state statute that prohibits marriage between a brother and sister related only by adoption, and not by blood, violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Pringle
Yes, a state statute prohibiting marriage between siblings related only by adoption violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court declined to determine whether marriage is a fundamental right, which would trigger strict scrutiny. Instead, it found that the statutory provision fails to satisfy even the minimum rationality requirements of the rational basis test. The state argued that the law furthers a legitimate interest in family harmony, but the court disagreed, noting that in this specific case, prohibiting the marriage was more likely to cause family discord. The court reasoned that the traditional justifications for prohibiting consanguineous marriages, such as preventing genetic defects and adhering to societal taboos against incest, are completely absent when the siblings are related only by adoption and share no blood ties. Finding no logical basis for the prohibition, the court held it unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of rational basis review to marriage regulations under the Equal Protection Clause. By striking down the prohibition, the court distinguishes between relationships based on consanguinity and those created by legal fiction, such as adoption. The ruling establishes that states cannot extend marriage prohibitions to legally-related individuals without a rational justification, especially when the primary public policy reasons for such laws (e.g., genetics) are not applicable. This precedent limits a state's ability to regulate marriage based on legal status alone and reinforces that different legal relationships may be treated differently for different purposes.
