"SOLEMNIZING MARRIAGES WITHOUT A LICENSE" CHARGES DROPPED: From the Daily Record of Rochester, NY

[excerpts; this doesn't seem to be online. --Eve]

A New Paltz Town Court judge has dismissed the indictments against two ordained ministers who performed marriages for 13 same sex couples even though the couples did not have marriage licenses.

In People v. Katherine Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, the defendants moved to dismiss the charges against them on the grounds the charges were unconstitutional because the couples they married were unconstitutionally denied the ability to secure marriage licenses. The prosecution asserted the defendants violated section 17 of the Domestic Relations Law and advanced two state interests for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples--tradition and procreation.

Judge Judith Reichler disagreed with the prosecution and held, "tradition is not a legitimate state interest and that prohibiting same sex couples from marrying is not rationally related to furthering the state's legitimate interest in providing a favorable environment for procreation and child rearing."

On March 6, the defendants Katherine Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, two ordained ministers of the Unitarian Universalist Church, performed marriage ceremonies for 13 same sex couples. The ceremonies took place in New Paltz, NY and the couples did not have marriage licenses.

The defendants are charged with solemnizing marriages without licenses, a violation of section 17 of the Domestic Relations Law (DRL 17). If convicted they face a maximum fine of $250 and/or up to a year in prison.

DRL states a person who performs a marriage without a marriage license is guilty of a misdemeanor. It does not make any distinction between same sex couples and heterosexual couples.

The New Paltz town clerk will not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples based on the New York State Department of Health's interpretation of DRL Section 13. The state interprets the law to only allow marriages between a man and a woman.

The defendants asserted the issue of the constitutionality of same sex marriage is before the court. They claimed the charges they face are unconstitutional because same sex couples whose marriages they performed were unconstitutionally denied the right to obtain marriage licenses.

According to the defendants, criminalizing the "solemnization of unlicensed same sex marriages by ordained clergy unconstitutionally infringes on the exercise of their religion and their religious belief that marriage is a desirable and holy state for all couples, including gay and lesbian couples."

The prosecution asserted the constitutionality of same sex marriages was not the issue before the court. According to the prosecution, the issue before the court was whether the defendants violated DRL 17.

The prosecution offered two state interests for limiting marriage. They are: the "long tradition of political, cultural and religious and legal consensus that marriage is understood as the union of male and female"; and "statutes prohibiting same sex marriages further the state interest of encouraging procreation and child rearing within a marital relationship."

First, Judge Reichler noted the issues of the constitutionality of same sex marriages and whether the defendants violated DRL 17 are "intertwined." ...

The judge turned to the arguments, noting the defendants admitted the state had an interest in regulating marriage. However, they asserted it was unconstitutional for the state to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

"In order for a statute to survive even the most deferential standard of review for constitutionality (the so-called 'rational basis' test), there must be a rational relationship between the classification adopted and the societal interest it purports to promote, Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, (1996)," the judge wrote. "Under this standard of review, a statute is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, Cleburn v. Cleburn Living Center, 473 US 432 (1985)."

The judge turned to the state's two reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples--tradition and procreation. She reviewed the traditional definition of marriage and noted the definition of family has change over the years.

"The traditional definition of marriage has also undergone many changes, especially as gender roles have expanded," the judge wrote. "A starting point is found in DRL section 10, which reminds us that 'marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract.'"

The judge reviewed the definition of civil marriage, and concluded it was flexible and subject to change. She then reviewed the issue of marriage and religion. ...

"There can be no constitutional rationale for denying same sex couples the right to receive the benefits that are so lavishly bestowed on mixed sex couples," Judge Reichler concluded.

In conclusion, the judge examined other court rulings on the subject at hand."New York's highest court has consistently extended rights and benefits to same sex partners, Braschi v. Stahl Assocs., 74 NY2d 201 (1989)," the judge wrote. "New York statutes have regularly been amended to prohibit discrimination against any individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and to extend rights and benefits to same-sex partners, see Civil Rights Law 40-c; Executive Law 290; 9 NYCRR 4.28 and 5.32; 9 NYCRR 2104.6; 18 NYCRR 421.16(h)(2)."

The judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

posted by Eve at 11:46 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home