## Facts

- Three same-sex couples in long-term committed relationships applied for marriage licenses in Vermont municipalities and were denied because the marriage statutes were administered as opposite-sex only.
- The couples sought declaratory relief, alleging that exclusion from civil marriage denied them the legal benefits and protections provided to opposite-sex married couples.
- The trial court upheld the marriage statutes against the state constitutional challenge.
- The couples appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, relying on the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause (ch. I, art. 7).

## Issues

1. Whether excluding same-sex couples from the statutory benefits and protections associated with civil marriage violates the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause.
2. Whether the State must provide same-sex couples access to the same legal benefits and protections as opposite-sex married couples, and what form any remedy must take.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the judgment upholding the exclusion.
- The Court held that denying same-sex couples the statutory benefits and protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples violates the Common Benefits Clause.
- The Court required the State to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.
- The Court did not require that the remedy use the word “marriage,” leaving the Legislature discretion to choose between inclusion in marriage or a parallel, functionally equivalent status.
- The Court suspended the effect of its ruling and retained jurisdiction to allow the Legislature time to enact a constitutionally compliant remedy.

## Legal Principles

- The Common Benefits Clause requires that public benefits and protections be distributed on equal terms unless differential treatment bears a real and substantial relation to legitimate governmental purposes.
- State constitutional equality analysis under Article 7 is not limited to federal equal protection tiers; the inquiry is whether the classification is reasonably and justly related to the government’s asserted objectives.
- Tradition alone is insufficient to justify withholding legal protections from a class of citizens where the classification fails the required relation to legitimate public purposes.
- When a statutory scheme confers a broad package of civil benefits and protections, categorical exclusion of otherwise qualified persons from that scheme triggers constitutional scrutiny focused on access to those benefits.
- Courts may enforce the constitutional requirement of equal access to statutory benefits while permitting legislative choice regarding the institutional form of compliance, so long as the resulting scheme provides equivalent benefits and protections.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits and protections attached to civil marriage violates the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause and required the State to provide same-sex couples an equal legal status conferring those benefits, while leaving the specific statutory mechanism to the Legislature.


Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999)