key distinctions between Mueller and the instant case: (1) unlike a common law claim for loss of consortium, a cause of action for wrongful death is statutory in nature and may not be judicially expanded; and (2) at the time of the operative event—i.e., Mr. Sapp’s death—California law did not preclude Messrs. Ferry and Sapp from marrying. First, as to the nature of the right being asserted, the Connecticut Supreme Court specifically noted that Mueller concerned the expansion of “the judicially created right to maintain a loss of consortium claim....” 312 Conn. at 660, 95 A.3d 1011 (emphasis in original). Thus, the court was “not constrained”- by the limitations that attend the expansion of “a statutory benefit.” Id. (citing Charron v. Amaral, 451 Mass. 767, 773, 889 N.E.2d 946 (2008) (<HOLDING>)). Here, on the other hand, “[i]t is well
holding that a samesex partner could not recover loss of consortium damages under a massachusetts statute for injuries  suffered by her partner even though samesex marriage was unlawful at the time the underlying tort occurred recognizing that laws prohibiting samesex marriage humiliate tens of thousands of children now being raised by samesex couples holding that although samesex partner may have been able to prove her status as a de facto parent such status was not sufficient to establish parental rights to custody and visitation over the objection of the biological mother holding that state bans on samesex marriage are unconstitutional holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children