Facts: Plaintiffs seek judgment declaring unconstitutional, and enjoining the enforcement of a statue requiring parental consent of both

parents prior to marriage of unemancipated minors. (males, 16-18; females, 14-18). They raised the issue of the statute impeding the exercise of their liberty, and they do not want to have their child stigmatized as illegitimate. Plaintiff Maria got pregnant at 15, and her mother refused to give consent because she wished to continue receiving welfare benefits for Maria. Intervenors Cristina Coe and Pedro Doe also raised the same issues. Issue: Whether or not the statute is unconstitutional on the basis of substantive issues. (Whether there exists a rational relation between the mean chosen b the NY legislature and the legitimate state objective) Held: The statute is upheld. It is the states interest to protect the minors from immature decision-making and preventing unstable marriages. The state, in its exercise of parenspatriae, possess the power to protect and promote the welfare of the children who lack the capacity to act in their own best interests. The requirement of parental consent ensures that at least 1 mature person will participate in the decision of a minor to marry. Though petitioners suggest that the courts are in a better position to judge whether a minor is prepared to marry, the law presumes that the parents possess what the child lacks in maturity, and that parents are more capable to act in their best interests. There is no denial of right to marry. The Statue merely delays plaintiff access to the institution of marriage until they comply with the necessary requirements of parental consent, or emancipation. The illegitimacy of the child would only be a temporary situation. Subsequent marriage of the parents legitimizes the child.