## Facts

- Three same-sex couples applied for Vermont marriage licenses and were denied by local officials under state law.
- The couples sought a declaratory judgment that the denial violated Vermont marriage statutes and the Vermont Constitution, including Chapter I, Article 7 (the Common Benefits Clause).
- Two of the couples were raising children together.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint and upheld the marriage statutes’ constitutionality.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage and the benefits and protections incident to marriage violates the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause (Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 7).
2. If unconstitutional, what remedy is required: immediate access to marriage licenses or legislative creation of an equivalent legal status providing the same benefits and protections.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the State must extend to same-sex couples the same benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.
- The court concluded the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage-related benefits and protections violated the Common Benefits Clause.
- The court did not order immediate issuance of marriage licenses.
- The court stayed the effect of its ruling, retained jurisdiction, and directed the Legislature to enact a statutory solution providing equal benefits and protections through marriage inclusion or an equivalent structure (e.g., domestic partnership).

## Legal Principles

- Under the Common Benefits Clause, statutory exclusions from publicly conferred benefits and protections must be justified by an appropriate and overriding public interest and must serve the common benefit rather than the advantage of a particular class.
- Article 7 requires a more searching inquiry than deferential rational speculation; classifications must be reasonably and justly related to asserted governmental purposes.
- The legal incidents of civil marriage comprise extensive statutory benefits and protections; withholding them from same-sex couples and their children imposes concrete hardships without adequate constitutional justification.
- Legitimate state interests in family stability and child welfare are not furthered by denying same-sex couples the marriage-related protections and obligations, particularly where the State otherwise recognizes same-sex families in adoption and custody contexts.
- When a constitutional violation is found, the Legislature may be afforded initial discretion to choose the form of compliance, so long as it provides same-sex couples benefits and protections equal to those provided to opposite-sex married couples.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the benefits and protections incident to marriage violates the Common Benefits Clause and required the State to provide equal legal protections, leaving the initial design of an equivalent statutory remedy to the Legislature under a stayed mandate and continuing judicial oversight.


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