|
|
|
|
N.Y. can exclude gays from marrying to protect children, high court rules
Chief judge slams court for leaving gay marriage to Legislature
By CHRIS CRAIN, Southern Voice
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7924
The Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, Thursday morning rejected arguments from gay and lesbian couples that their inability to get marriage licences in New York violated their constitutional right to equal protection.
The decision stated the court was not persuaded that the "long- accepted restriction [against same-sex marriage] is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals."
Writing for a plurality of three justices, Judge Robert Smith said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, he said.
"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," Smith wrote.
Smith was joined by Judges George Bundy Smith and Susan P. Read. A fourth judge, Victoria A. Graffeo, agreed with the outcome and wrote a separate opinion.
Plurality: 'Welfare of children'
The three justices in the plurality concluded there were two "rational bases" for the Legislature to decide to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, both involving "the welfare of children."
Toward that goal, the three justices concluded, the Legislature could rationally decide "it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." The justices acknowledged that many straight couples have children and many gay couples do, but nonetheless it is a fact of biology that only sex within opposite-sex coupling leads to pregnancy.
"The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into and grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples," the three justices concluded, "and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."
The other rational justification for limiting to marriage to opposite-sex couples, the plurality ruled, was the belief that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." The justices acknowledged the scientific evidence that has concluded children raised by same-sex couples are no worse off for it, but pronounced the data preliminary.
"In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father at home," the plurality wrote.
Dissent: 'An unfortunate misstep'
In a 28-page dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye argued that the court had erred.
"I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep," wrote Kaye. "This court cannot avoid its obligations to remedy constitutional violations in the hope that the Legislature might some day render the question presented academic" by passing legislation that makes marriage gender-neutral.
Joined in dissent by Judge Carmen B. Ciparick, Judge Kaye chastised the other justices for concluding the "fundamental right" at stake in the case was the "right to marry someone of the same sex" and not "the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Kaye argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark gay rights decision in Lawrence vs. Texas had warned against framing the issue too narrowly. In Lawrence, the court overturned sodomy laws in a dozen states, concluding the right at stake was "the right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct," not, as the court had ruled in 17 years earlier in Bowers vs. Hardwick, "the right of homosexuals to engage in sodomy."
Activists: fight moves to Legislature
Gay advocates vowed to continue the fight for gay marriage.
"We're very disappointed that the court was unable to vindicate the constitutional rights for the many thousands of gay and lesbian couples throughout New York state,' said Roberta A. Kaplan, an attorney who represented same-sex couples denied marriage licenses, Bloomberg News reported. "We will take this battle to the legislature."
In something of a surprise, Democratic Party chair Howard Dean issued a statement hours after the ruling was announced that vowed to fight the issue in the state's Legislature.
"Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal," Dean said. "It is up to the state legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker."
Dean was governor of Vermont when that state's highest court ruled in 1999 that gay couples had a constitutional right to marry. Dean opposed efforts then to open marriage up to gay couples, however, and instead signed into effect the nation's first civil unions law. Since that time, he has opposed marriage for gay couples, arguing that civil unions are the exact equivalent, a point vigorously disputed by gay activists.
The judges on New York's highest court declined to follow Vermont's lead, or that of high court judges in neighboring Massachusetts, who ruled that same-sex couples in that state have the same right to wed as straight couples. Instead, the court cited decisions by intermediate appellate courts in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Arizona as supporting its conclusions.
The four cases decided Thursday were filed two years ago when the Massachusetts decision helped usher in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco. In New York, the mayor of the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz married about two dozen gay couples in February 2004.
With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs in the suits, including the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell and his longtime partner.
"It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors."
Burke and her partner of seven years, Tonja Alvis, are raising her 11-year-old son.
© 2006 | A Window Media Publication
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia high court reinstates marriage amendment
Unanimous decision reverses lower court, avoids November ballot battle
By RYAN LEE, Southern Voice
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7927
The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously voted Thursday to reinstate the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage approved by voters in 2004, saying “we adopt as the amendment’s objective, reserving marriage and its attendant benefits to unions of man and woman.”
Writing for the seven-judge high court, Justice Robert Benham rejected the argument that the amendment violates the state Constitution’s single-subject rule by outlawing both marriage and civil unions.
“It is apparent that the prohibition against recognizing same-sex unions as entitled to the benefits of marriage is not ‘dissimilar and discordant’ to the objective of reserving the status of marriage and its attendant benefits exclusively to unions of man and woman,” Benham wrote.
The ruling halts a looming special session of the General Assembly, that Gov. Sonny Perdue promised to call if the state’s high court did not reverse Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell’s ruling by Aug. 7.
Russell ruled in May that the 2004 amendment asked voters a single question about two separate issues, the definition of marriage and whether gay and lesbian couples should be entitled to possible civil unions.
The Georgia Supreme Court has the final word interpreting the state Constitution, meaning there are no remaining routes for appeal. The ruling also means that a revised amendment will not appear on the November general election ballot.
Gov. Sonny Perdue today hailed the state Supreme Court's decision in a prepared statement.
“We’re a republic. Public officials are elected to represent the people, and we don’t use a referendum very often. But when we do use a constitutional amendment, we are very respectful of the people’s voice. This issue was put before the General Assembly and passed by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Then it was put before the people on the ballot and passed by an even greater margin.
“The benefits of marriage, as defined by the people of Georgia, are afforded to a man and a woman.”
Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker told the Associated Press that the court's decision was the "correct one."
"The people of Georgia overwhelmingly ratified the constitutional amendment stating that marriage and the benefits of marriage should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman," he said, according to the AP.
Jack Senterfitt, lawyer for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which challenged the constitutional amendment, said he was disappointed with the ruling but that no further legal challenge was planned, the AP reported.
At a press conference today at the state Capitol, Chuck Bowen, executive director of Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights organization, also expressed disappointment in the ruling.
"We are disappointed with the decision, but respect the democratic process that led to it,” he said in a prepared statement.
“With today’s unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, there is no need for a money-wasting special session of the General Assembly. We applaud Governor Perdue for acknowledging that he will not call a special session this August,” he said.
The decision also removes same-sex marriage as an issue for candidates who have used it as a campaign tactic to energize supporters, Bowen said.
“Our families and our lives should never be used to pander for votes. Georgia Equality calls on all candidates not to use members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, our families and our allies to further their own political careers,” Bowen said.
“The judicial process in this case has allowed us to continue and expand our dialogue of letting the greater Georgia community know that we are no different than anyone else. We have the same hopes, dreams and aspirations that are shared by all Georgia families,” he said.
© 2006 | A Window Media Publication
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
As I recall, JUdges are elected in New York....
If I am correct, then they are campaigning for reelection, not judging an issue.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it to be disappointing also that they decided that equal rights do not extend to same sex unions as well as to traditional marriages. I think that the goal should be to get those equal considerations and in years to come the lines will blur like they have in Germany.
I can see why these things go the way they do when you try to get the average person to accept same sex unions with the same accord they do hetrosexual unions no matter what they are called. For the time being I would be just happy to see all couples to have the same rights as to inheritance, taxes, insurance, rights to visit in hospital, etc. If gay advocates would just not try to force acceptance but just reach for the rights they deserve to have, this would become a moot point in a few years the same as it has in Germany.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
