NY Court Says NO! To Gay Marriage
 

Verbatim: NY Court Says No to Gay Marriage
By Laura Conaway | July 06, 2006

In a 4-2 decision today, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex couples presently have no right to marriage under state law. The high-court's stance effectively punted the matter over to the state legislature, which historically has been slow to act on behalf of gay citizens.

The following are key excerpts from the ruling, available online.


"We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

[. . .]

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary.

It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other. The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in oppositesex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

[. . .]

We hold, in sum, that the Domestic Relations Law's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not unconstitutional. We emphasize once again that we are deciding only this constitutional question. It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. We have presented some (though not all) of the arguments against same-sex marriage because our duty to defer to the Legislature requires us to do so. We do not imply that there are no persuasive arguments on the other side -- and we know, of course, that there are very powerful emotions on both sides of the question. [. . .]

It may well be that the time has come for the Legislature to address the needs of same-sex couples and their families, and to consider granting these individuals additional benefits through marriage or whatever status the Legislature deems appropriate. Because the New York Constitution does not compel such a revision of the Domestic Relations Law, the decision whether or not to do so rests with our elected representatives."


In her dissent, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye called marriage a fundamental right, and argued that the gay couples have had trouble wringing any rights from the legislature:


"Defendants contend that classifications based on sexual orientation should not be afforded heightened scrutiny because, they claim, homosexuals are sufficiently able to achieve protection from discrimination through the political process, as evidenced by the Legislature's passage of SONDA in 2002. SONDA, however, was first introduced in 1971. It failed repeatedly for 31 years, until it was finally enacted just four years ago. Further, during the Senate debate on the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, one Senator noted that '[i]t's no secret that for years we could have passed a hate-crimes bill if we were willing to take out gay people, if [we] were willing to take out sexual orientation. . .' The simple fact is that New York has not enacted anything approaching comprehensive statewide domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples, much less marriage or even civil unions.

[. . .]

The fact remains that although a number of bills to authorize same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, none has ever made it out of committee.

[. . .]

It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation. The Court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

Fuck.

"Could"
 

It's clear that the tack the 4 NY judges took was all about children, ignoring the issue of the civil benefits that acrue to legally married couples and don't acrue to equally commited same sex couples. Not all same sex couples have children, and with a 50% divorce rate, the latter is just as likely to "damage" children as having parents of the same sex.

Couldn't one same the same thing about heterosexual couples?

How could one find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary, and decide that the solution is to prevent the legal recognition of partnership that leads to more permanent coupling?

Backassward
 

Indeed, toad. When you read their arguments the illogic is glaring. It all sounds rather hateful, actually.

If this issue becomes a cornerstone for the mid-term elections, what does that say about our country? Where are our priorities?

How 'bout them activist judges in the blue state, eh?

(I'm really quite amused)

Damn, I *so* wanted to call them that, Wolf. Great minds and all...

I know I beat this subject to death, but goddamn it...preventing the legal partnering of same sex couples has got to be one of the stupidest, most pointless, discriminatory, ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted and just plain downright *wrong* things going on in this country.

Morals? Not in this land. Better that a heterosexual couple who hate each others guts raise their children than a loving same sex couple. Sure, the kids raised by heteros will be basket cases, but they're likely to be *straight* basket cases, I guess. And that's what's important...putting the right appendange in the right hole. Mental health and well-adjustment be damned.

Ptui!

That part kills me. They invoke science but ignore the science that has pretty-much established that homosexuality is a biological trait, not a "lifestyle." People tend to avoid this science-based argument, but it's THE one to make. I wish that debate was more in the forefront. I wish both the scientific and Gay community would push that argument. But then again, we're dealing with people who deny evolution too, so what's the point? I guess it is about poles and holes (or polls and holes).

There's an article on the whole anti-gay-marriage thing in the June Rolling Stone.

Turns out, even Fred Phelps (Mr. God Hates Fags) denounces Bush as shameless for his support of the amendment.

Not that this is about the amendment.

Bigots in power... welcome to America.

Like it or not at least it's a state issue now. Some states will likely decide not to permite gay marriage and others will. Any overarching legislation either banning it or stamping it into law is inappropriate, the natural result is different results in different states.

The smart thing to do
 

would be to focus on simply obtaining civil union rights equal to marriage rights. It's the word marriage that is causing this backlash.

Unfortunately, the push for "gay marriage" will continue, the invective and vitriol will only get worse on both sides, and homosexuals will end up with less progress toward equal rights. A lot of middle-of-the-road voters, who would probably have otherwise voted for civil unions, will hear the accusations and verbal garbage being tossed at straight people and think "fine, screw you then. you get nothing."

Score remains: 49-1

The point that seems to be missed in the furor over "gays should marry" vs. "gays shouldn't marry" is that the court rightly decided that this is not an issue for the courts, but should be decided in the State Legislature.

Jordon, haven't we run you off yet?

There was a dissenting judge who didn't see it that way. If the State Legislature passed a law authorizing same sex marriages and the Constitutionality of that law were to be challenged up to the Court of Appeals, would the Court refuse to hear the case citing it's previous decision that the Legislature has the final word on the issue? Such an acid test might just reveal that today's court was overly content with the status quo.

What's wrong with Jordan?

Need I point out this thread?

Jordon is right...we *must* teach our children morality. It is only right to do so. Otherwise, they will grow up in a moral vacuum, bereft of knowledge of how to behave properly.

Of course, this needs to be *my* personal morality that we're teaching them, as I alone hold the keys to right, Truth and all that other stuff...so the rest of you buggers can jolly well go boink yourselves. :right:

Well frankly speaking I know plenty of kids who could be described as moral vacuums who no one would want to touch with a twenty foot pole. They don't have to be copies of the 50's but if they clash too overtly with the current standard they wont get very far. Most professionals dont have the time or patience to deal with poorly raised kids, they just move onto the next one in line. Our lab recently fired a student who constantly pestered the rest of us with adds for his 'current issues' class. Shows that you don't have to be a goth to rub people the wrong way, just couldn't keep things were they belong.

*applause*
I love it!

"Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals."
JUDGE ROBERT S. SMITH, New York State Court of Appeals, in the majority opinion denying marriage to same-sex couples.

Maybe if homosexuals didn't think it so crucial to "educate" seven year old children, they'd get more sympathy from voters. C'est la vie.

Maybe if

A.) People like YOU weren't so damn bigoted, they wouldnt have to fight to have equal rights

B.) People would give them the equal rights they deserve, people wouldnt need to be taught that gay people are people too.

Yes. [sarcasm]Their Christian bias is glaring there in NY.[/sarcasm]

Dont fret. There are higher courts to decide this again. Probably.

Poor Jesus... I weep for him. All the shit done in his name, I would just be so sick.

riiiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt Ibram. The only way that little peice of intellectual genius you just regurgitated onto the board could be interpreted is that if only everyone would just agree with you everything would be just peachy. You're showing your age

WTF?

What? it's pretty simple logic. If gay people were treated the same as straight people, they wouldnt have to fight for their rights.

Remember, Jordon believes that if a seven-year-old knows that gay people exist, that is paramount to teaching them how to have gay sex.

Actually, I'm the one treating them like everyone else if you really think about it. What they are asking for is to be given new rights that no one has right now. Come to think about it, everyone screams about how gays are being denied their rights without every saying what those rights actually are. They can do everything I can do. The reason I don't give half a damn about this is that I don't care whether someone can marry the person they are screwing. I'll boil it down, I absolutely, positively, 100% do not care about the love-factor in this. I want to roll on the ground laughing when someone says we should radically overhaul the marriage laws because of love. Reeks like bad daytime soap opera.

They don't have the right to marry the people they want to. Any straight person has that right.

They want their marriages recognized by the state, which is absolutely trivial for straight people.

And straight people shouldn't be afforded special rights simply because they are (or claim to be) straight.

Hmmmmm, problem here, namely that living together and calling each other 'dear' is not being married. To gay guys who do that are not married and therefor I am not "refusing to recognize their marriage". Can't ignore what doesn't exist man

People can and do get married with no governmental involvement. But if they want all of the governmental rights and priviledges, they have to "make it official".

Another one bites the dust: I'm sensing a trend here
 

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, who ruled last year that the measure was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the amendment in 2000.

The court said the amendment ``and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.''

Attorney General Jon Bruning argued earlier that the ban should be restored because it ``does not violate any person's freedom of expression or association.''

Opponents of the ban ``are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit,'' he said. ``Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters ... did.'':footpyth:

What the queers should be pushing is the fact that if they marry, they can't collect all their Social Security, only from one(I think the greater), plus a % for the spouse.

That ought to sway the people that are worried about SS, unless they are bigots. And if they are, nothing is going to sway them. But the people on the fence, or just uncomfortable with change, might buy a practical plus for themselves. :idea:

More stupid bigots at work... nice to see that Nebraska & Tennessee have no hunger, no economic issues, no welfare mothers, no meth to deal with... yup, this is what their lawmakers need to be spending their time on. Idiots.

Nebraska gay marriage ban reinstated

In Nebraska and Tennessee, More Setbacks to Gay Rights

Rzen...don't you know that who sticks what into whom is the most pressing issue facing our planet? Why, if it weren't for all this godless sodomy, we'd be living in a Paradise.

Heck, the godless sodomy is the only reason I get out of bed in the morning! Oh, and coffee.:morncoff:

bumpity boooo...

Time to revisit this subject as there is going to be another vote very soon..

The case for outing closeted politicians
Link

Interesting... I wonder if that last part includes Weiner's wiener

Maybe if sexting legislation became a wedge issue.

I was probably one of a half-dozen people across the country who watched the first Republican Presidential Candidate Debate in New Hampshire on Monday.

I was rather pleased when Ron Paul said something I'd been saying about marriage (not just gay) for years ... the state needs to be out of the marriage business. It's a religious contract. Churches should be able to hitch whomever (with legal ability to consent) they want.

The problem with Paul's position is that it does not address the numerous legal rights associated with marriage, which is also the problem with some states domestic partner laws.

Marriage hasn't always been a religious contract, and isn't solely one now. It usually involves inheritance rights, which in a non-theocracy is a non-religious state matter.

Civil marriage and religious marriage exist now, and can be done independently of each other. You can be civilly married without clergy, and you can be religiously married without the state. In both cases, if you try to claim the benefits of the other when you only have the one, you may be subject to the penalties (whatever they may be) of the other.

Getting the government "out of the marriage business" would do nothing but make up a new name for civil marriage. That would be OK, but I doubt colloquial use would change. People married by a justice of the peace would still call themselves married. All that renaming would do is let some people tell them "but you're not, really".

It would also make people's religious views completely obvious. Religious views are a personal matter and I doubt many people would like to have them publicly displayed in that manner.

Of two organizations involved in marriage - only government is necessary. Many are forgoing a church ceremony. A civil ceremony is sufficient. A church wedding is only a thrill. Reason for a party. A celebration. Has no other relevance. Any politician saying otherwise is, well, the Church ordered American politicians to impose Church doctrine on all Americans. Says how much respect that Church really deserves. Made even more damning because that Church all but condoned pedophilia.

Any religion imposing their political agenda on marriage is promoting contempt for principles defined by the American Constitution. A church is only a consultant. Religion is 100% about a relationship between one human and his god. The church can advise. And, as a consultant, must concede or agree with the views of any person. Consultants have no right to impose their views on anyone else. A concept so deeply embedded in fundamental American principles that this post should not even be necessary.

Nobody needs a church wedding. But marriage must be defined by civil structures.

I keep posting these concepts. And still cannot get excommunicated. What does it take to get on the Pope's hate list?

Government must be in the marriage business. Organized religion does not.

"Church" or "the church", does not, or at least should not, mean Roman Catholic.

Senator Roy McDonald(R).