State of New York - courses.cit.cornell.edu - Cornell University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

distinctions based on gender and sexual orientation, leaves all same-sex couples without access to this extraordinarily significant legal institution. 37. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that New York’s Domestic Relations Law is unconstitutional insofar as it denies the right to marry to same-sex couples and an injunction requiring Defendants to grant them marriage licenses and access to civil marriage on the same terms and conditions available to different-sex couples. 38. Except for the fact that they are of the same sex, plaintiffs are legally qualified to marry under the laws of New York. 39. During the winter and spring of 2004, each plaintiff couple identified hereinabove appeared in person and applied for a marriage license by completing an application at the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Ithaca. 40. After completing the marriage application and filing it with the City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, each plaintiff couple was notified by the City of Ithaca as follows: “The New York State Department of Health has advised that the issuance of a marriage license to same-sex couples violates New York Law and would subject any municipal clerk who issues such a license to criminal prosecution and penalties. Accordingly, I am constrained to reject your recent application for a marriage license.” 41. The aforementioned letter of rejection was signed by the defendant Julie Conley Holcomb as the City Clerk and by Martin A. Luster as the City Attorney for the City of Ithaca. 42. The plaintiff couples bringing this action continue in their desire to be married in the State of New York to participate fully in an institution that plays a central role in our society. 43. By denying Plaintiffs access to marriage, New York State law forbids them from making the legal commitment to one another that marriage entails and deprives them of the comprehensive legal structure for couples that marriage provides. 44. Plaintiffs are harmed by their exclusion from a broad array of statutory protections, benefits, and mg\litigat\SameSex.com - Page 6 -
mutual responsibilities afforded by New York’s marriage law. In addition, because many private parties rely on the State’s conferral of marriage and the definition of a “spouse,” plaintiffs suffer deprivation of certain privately conferred benefits and protections, and from lack of appropriate recognition and respect for their relationship in their neighborhood, workplace and in other areas of their everyday lives. mg\litigat\SameSex.com FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 46. Article I, section 6 of New York State’s Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Among the personal interests protected by the New York State Constitution’s due process clause is the right to privacy, which includes one’s ability to make intimate choices of a deeply personal nature, including whom to marry. 47. The State’s statutory framework for marriage precludes two individuals of the same sex from exercising the right to marry each other, interfering with a core personal choice. 48. The State’s statutory framework for marriage, insofar as it bars Plaintiffs from marriage because they wish to marry a partner of the same sex, violates the State constitutional right of due process. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through forty-nine as if set forth fully herein. 50. The State’s statutory framework for marriage discriminates against individuals in same-sex relationships because they wish to marry a life partner of the same sex, allowing access to marriage only for different-sex couples. 51. The State’s statutory framework for marriage, insofar as it discriminates against Plaintiffs and the other same-sex couples by drawing impermissible distinctions based on gender and sexual - Page 7 -
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: CO
Page 3 and 4: time college instructor. 11. Plaint
Page 5: Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State o

State of New York - courses.cit.cornell.edu - Cornell University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?