LGBT New York court says no to gay marriage

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by NOVAJock, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    New York court says no to gay marriage

    Ruling says better ‘for children to grow up with both a mother and a father’

    By Pete Williams
    Justice correspondent
    NBC News
    Updated: 11:42 a.m. ET July 6, 2006

    WASHINGTON — New York's highest court ruled Thursday that state law does not permit gay couples to get married there and that such a restriction does not violate New York's constitution.

    "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature," today's decision said. The seven-member court voted 4-2 with one judge not participating.

    The decision, by one of the nation's more liberal state supreme courts, came as a surprise to lawyers on both sides of the issue. The case was brought by 44 same-sex couples who had sought marriage licenses and were turned down.

    Advocates for gay rights immediately said they would now press the legislature to change the law.

    Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, a group that supports amending the U.S. Constitution to block gay marriage, called today's decision, "an example of the courts doing the right thing. The court properly defered to the legislative branch. There's no question that judges watch what other courts are doing. In that respect it will be helpful.

    Ruling cites stability as a concern

    In today's ruling, the court found that the state ban had a rational basis and was therefore constitutional.

    "For the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships," the majority said. And it ruled that a state legislature could also rationally conclude that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father."

    Because today's decision involved purely state legal issues, no appeal is expected to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The court based part of its ruling today on biology — the fact that opposite-sex couples can 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," who must plan more deliberately to raise children, the decision said.

    "That is absurd and outrageous," said James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented some of the same-sex couples in the case. "It turns on its head the arguments made about gay people for years, that they are not responsible and form fly-by-night relationships. Now the court is saying straight people need to be protected from their impulses."

    Dissent says denial a form of discrimination

    Writing for the court's two dissenters, Judge Judith Kaye said state law improperly discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry.

    "Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that those groups have historically been denied those rights. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep," she wrote.

    In writing today's majority opinion, Judge Robert Smith offered a rejoinder. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."

    Judge Albert Rosenblatt took no part in today's decision. He gave no reason, but his daughter is a lawyer involved in cases that raise similar issues in other states.

    Only Massachusetts permits same-sex couples to marry, and state officials say they have granted just over 8,100 such licenses in the past two years. Vermont allows civil unions.

    Pete Williams is NBC News Justice Correspondent.
     
  2. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    I find it interesting that one of the definitive factors of their decision was the concept that children need to have a mother and father in their life in order to be properly raised.

    If that's the case, then I would ask that the courts conduct research into the children of single parents. How were they raised? Are they productive members of society, or all failed degenerates?

    I would also ask, what about gay couples that don't/can't legally marry but are still able to adopt? What's next? Outlawing adoption of children to single people and people of the same sex living under one roof?

    Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?
     
  3. Ivan

    Ivan New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,307
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Spain
    I haven't even read it. I bet it's the same load of shit as always. Kids have to have both father and mother, not father and father or mother and mother because they get bullied in school and blah blah blah...
     
  4. LikkleBaer

    LikkleBaer New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    I think it's important to be raised by people who love you and are willing to put in the time and effort to teach you and look after you responsibly.

    While I would agree that it is healthier to have both positive male and positive female role models, these need not necessarily be in the form of a traditional family unit.

    One of my friends wants to get married to his boyfriend, but as things currently stand in Australia, they're planning on a trip to Amsterdam.
     
  5. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I'm straight, and as much as I hate to disrespect my parents, I frankly have never had an adequate demonstration that having a woman by my side would improve my life in any measurable, long-term way. I suppose I could say that my parents' heterosexual marriage has been stable and consistent, and I certainly wouldn't exist if they had not gotten married, but to be honest my parents' marriage has been stably and consistently bad. They've been married for 26 years and for only two of those years was I able to wake up in the morning with a reasonable expectation that they would get along. Right now they barely even speak to each other, except to settle the family bills.

    Given that I am quite simply not attracted to men in any fashion, I'm afraid it may be quite some time before I'm no longer alone in the dark every night.
     

Share This Page