In People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 474 N.E.2d 567 (1984), cert denied 471 U.S. 1020 (1985), the Court of Appeals rejected anachronistic views about the subservient role of a woman relative to her husband as the rational basis for the marital rape exception. (Id. at 164.) There, the Court of Appeals determined that New York's forcible rape statute violated equal protection because it applied to males who forcibly raped females, but exempted females from criminal liability for forcible rape of males. (People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d at 170.) In assessing whether or not to strike down the law, the Court of Appeals looked to "the importance of the statute, the significance of the exemption within the over-all statutory scheme, and the effects of striking down the statute." (Id. at 171.) Noting that forcible rape statutes were of "utmost importance" and that declaring "such statutes a nullity would have a disastrous effect on the public interest and safety," the Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to "eliminate the exemptions" and "thereby preserve the statutes." (Id. at 171-172.) The Court thus construed the statute in a gender-neutral fashion, striking the gender exception and interpreting the law to apply to all persons. (Id. at 172.)