New York Court Rules Against Gay Marriage genre: Gaylingual & Polispeak & Uncivil Unions

Gay marriage

UPDATE:

The ruling was a 4-2 decision and the Court limited its decision to the argument that the constitution did not require that same sex marriages be allowed and they did not argue for or against the State Legislature making a decision to allow them. Nonetheless, there is little potential that the current Legislature would vote to approve same sex marriage. Read the full New York Times article here.

The decision called the idea of same-sex marriage "a relatively new one" and said that for most of history, society has conceived of marriage exclusively as a bond between a man and a woman. "A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted," the decision stated.

"There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted," the court said, "both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children."

First, the court said, marriage could be preserved as an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. Second, lawmakers could rationally conclude that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the 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," the court said.

_________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL POSTING:

The New York Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same sex marriages. The decision upheld the original lower court ruling in three separate cases. The ruling also upheld the overturning of one other case in which the judge had ruled that prohibition of same sex marriage was a denial of constitutional guarantees.

The Court of Appeals decision, while a disappointment, did suggest that the issue was one best determined by the New York State Legislature. Polling in New York shows that a majority of New Yorkers favors same sex marriage.

If one were to use the rhetoric of those opposed to same sex marriage, then the Legislature should respond and allow same sex marriage since that appears to be the will of the people of New York. If that were to happen, it will be interesting to see how the opponents of same sex marriage will adjust their argument. They have also used the argument that activist judges should not impose same sex marriage upon the citizens of a state if that ruling would be inconsistent with voter sentiment. As same sex marriage becomes acceptable to a majority of Americans, I expect opponents will craft a new argument.

Daniel DiRito | July 6, 2006 | 7:17 AM
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Post a comment


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry


© Copyright 2024

Casting

Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader

Encores

http://DeeperLeft.com

Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design