Lewis v. Harris
875 A.2d 259, 378 N.J. Super. 168 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory limitation of marriage to a union between opposite-sex individuals does not violate the rights to privacy and equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution, as the fundamental right to marry has historically and traditionally been understood to apply only to a man and a woman.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples residing in New Jersey who have been in committed, long-term relationships.
- Several of the plaintiff couples are raising children whom they have either adopted or birthed through artificial insemination.
- Each plaintiff couple applied for a marriage license in the New Jersey municipality where they resided.
- The respective municipal clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to each couple.
- The sole reason given for the denials was that New Jersey law does not authorize a marriage between members of the same sex.
Procedural Posture:
- Seven same-sex couples sued New Jersey state officials in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (a trial court), challenging the constitutionality of denying them marriage licenses.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted into a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint and upholding the state's marriage laws.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 the statutory limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of privacy and equal protection guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Skillman, P.J.A.D.
No. The statutory limitation of the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex does not violate the New Jersey Constitution. The right to marry is a fundamental right, but it has always been understood to apply only to opposite-sex couples and is deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated a racial classification, because the opposite-sex requirement is intrinsic to the historical definition of marriage itself. The Legislature's recent creation of the Domestic Partnership Act demonstrates a deliberate policy choice to extend many rights to same-sex couples without redefining marriage, a decision that falls within the legislative, not judicial, purview.
Concurring - Parrillo, J.A.D.
No. The marriage laws do not violate the state constitution. This opinion distinguishes between the 'right to marry' and the 'rights of marriage.' While same-sex couples may challenge the denial of specific benefits, they are not constitutionally entitled to a redefinition of the institution of marriage itself. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving the traditional, opposite-sex nature of marriage, which is historically linked to procreation and its societal consequences. Such a profound change to the public meaning of marriage is a matter for the democratic legislative process, not judicial fiat.
Dissenting - Collester, J.A.D.
Yes. The statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution. The majority's reasoning is circular, defining marriage in a way that excludes plaintiffs from a fundamental right that should be available to all: the right to marry a person of one's choosing. This approach echoes the flawed historical arguments used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. The state's proffered justifications, based on tradition and procreation, are unpersuasive and insufficient to justify depriving plaintiffs and their children of the dignity and legal protections of marriage, as the separate status of domestic partnership is inherently unequal.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant instance of judicial deference, holding that the redefinition of a fundamental social institution like marriage is a policy matter for the Legislature, not the courts. By upholding the traditional definition of marriage while acknowledging the Legislature's power to grant marriage-like benefits through domestic partnerships, the court set the stage for a final constitutional showdown at the New Jersey Supreme Court. The ruling highlights the conflict between established legal traditions and evolving social norms regarding family and equality, forcing a higher court to determine whether the state's 'separate but equal' approach for same-sex couples could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
