NY Court Rules Against Gay Marriage

The supporters of equal rights for the GLBT coummunity lost a round in that ongoing battle today when the New York Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex marriage is not allowed under state law. The opinion was written by Judge Robert Smith. In it, he wrote "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."

I can't help but wonder if all the rhetoric put out in the public domain by right-wing opponents of same-sex marriage about "activist judges" may have affected one or two of the votes on the court, which voted 4-2 on this ruling. In dissenting, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote, "I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of Empire State Pride Agenda, responded to the ruling with this challenge, "Today's decision is far from the end of the battle for New York's lesbian and gay families. The Court has had its say, and now it is time for our elected officials to stand against discrimination and support marriage equality. Today, the Pride Agenda begins a campaign to press Albany to pass a marriage bill in 2007. For two years, legislators have waited for the Court to rule on this issue. It's now time for Albany to lead."

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was resolute, "“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage. We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails. We will continue to move forward.”

Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, lashed out at the court, “Today’s tortured and intellectually strained decision is beyond disappointing. It is insulting to gay and lesbian people and our families. It is an egregious departure from the New York Court of Appeals’ long and proud tradition of advancing liberty and dismantling discrimination. It is a disgrace to the constitution and the people of New York.'

The Family Research Council's Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, on the other hand, was feeling rather chipper, "The New York court reasonably concluded that the legislature has a legitimate interest in promoting responsible procreation and can 'rationally' believe that children need both a mother and a father. The court's well-reasoned ruling is a shining example for other courts across the nation. As we await rulings in several other states, we can only hope that other courts will exercise similar judicial restraint and avoid substituting their own social policy preferences for those of the legislatures and the people."

American Family Association Center for Law and Policy chief counsel Steve Crampton sees the decision as a "major blow” to the “radical homosexual effort to reconstitute the moral framework of our nation.” He added, "“For years the homosexuals have used the courts to get what they could never get through the democratic process; in New York, at least, they will have to seek change the old-fashioned way.”

Remember, courts that agree with the right wing are good, those who disagree are radical activists. Or are the radical activists on the right wing side and courts who disagree with them concerned about equality and fairness? Sadly, I could probably quote the response to that question from each of the officials I quoted here nearly verbatim.