NY court rules against gay marriage

BY JOHN RILEY
Newsday Staff Writer

July 7, 2006

ALBANY -- In a setback for the gay-marriage movement, New York's highest court yesterday ruled 4-2 that same-sex couples do not have a state constitutional right to marry, refusing to follow the course set by Massachusetts' top court in 2003 and setting the stage for a legislative battle in Albany next year.

"It's disheartening and difficult to hear that the courts can't protect us and we have to turn to the people," said a disappointed Cindy Bink of West Hurley, N.Y., who joined her partner and 43 other gay couples as plaintiffs in the case. "It's my hope that we're going to convince people that there's nothing to be afraid of when they look at us."

The court said that despite some ambiguous language, New York marriage laws permit only opposite-sex couples to marry, and ruled that limitation does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because lawmakers might rationally have wanted marriage laws to encourage couples that could conceive children to form stable unions, and might reasonably have favored child rearing in families with a mother and a father.

Any change in the law, Judge Robert Smith said in his majority opinion, should come through the political process. "It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong," 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."

Smith was joined by two other appointees of Gov. George Pataki, and by Judge George Bundy Smith, an appointee of Gov. Mario Cuomo who is seeking reappointment by Pataki. A fourth Pataki appointee, Judge Albert Rosenblatt, recused himself.

Two Cuomo appointees dissented, with Chief Judge Judith Kaye warning that "future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep" that unfairly deprived gay and lesbian couples of the benefits of marriage. "This state has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers," Kaye wrote. "Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition."

As a result of yesterday's decision, Massachusetts - where the state Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that a ban on gay marriages violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws - remains the only state where same-sex marriage is permitted. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions of gay and lesbian couples.

Forty-five states, many of them since 2003, have adopted laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Georgia's Supreme Court yesterday approved a ban adopted by voters there in 2004. While gay-marriage court cases are still pending in New Jersey and Washington, legal experts said the New York defeat was a discouraging setback for the movement in one of the few states where the door had remained open.

"If any court other than Massachusetts was going to find a right to gay marriage, it was probably going to be this court," said Joanna Grossman, a family law expert who teaches at Hofstra University Law School.

Opponents of gay marriage were quick to laud the decision. "Those who believe in judicial restraint will welcome today's ruling," said Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League. "... Those who believe in the institution of marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years will also welcome today's ruling."

But supporters of same-sex marriage said their polls showed steady gains in public support for "marriage equality" in New York, and promised to push hard for a legislative solution. "The issue is not going away," said Alan van Cappelle of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights advocacy group. "It's going to intensify."

The political prospects for the issue in Albany appeared to be mixed. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Pataki, both said that they would push for legislation permitting gay marriage.

"I believe that same-sex marriage should be permissible under New York State law," Spitzer said.

But Pataki, Republican gubernatorial nominee John Faso and Sen. Joseph Bruno, leader of the Republican majority in the state Senate, all praised the court and said they would not support legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

In the Democrat-controlled state Assembly, where gay-marriage advocates anticipate more support, Speaker Sheldon Silver showed no immediate enthusiasm for joining the fray. He "believes it would be premature for him to discuss the issue before taking it to his conference," said spokesman Brian Franke.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

I like the part where they acknowledge that history will probably view them as blue veined dicks. Nice.

Thank god they passed this because my way of life was going to be adversely affected if this did not happen

The real travesty of this ruling is that the court made reference to a state interest in promoting dual sex couples raising children. A complete bullshit rationale.

On teh same day that the ARKANSAS supreme court ruled against a law favoring hetrosexual couples for foster care.

Thanks for the judges, Mr. Pataki. Now start packing your bags.

No shit.

You actually think this guy is a Republican? HA!

There was a local radio pundit on yesterday, and he said that this was the minority pushing their views and agenda's on to other people. I felt like calling him and saying, "Uhhhh, how's that Bob?" They gonna make you gay now?

i can accept this ruling if it states in current state law that marriage is legally defined as between a man and woman (which they imply). i'm all for judges challenging the people of the state to push through legislation to make it officially legal. i'm with the rest of you though on the reference to dual-sex partnerships raising kids. that is not part of the courts' responsibility.

1) have any of these lawmakers been living in reality? maury povich has been doing the same show for years: DNA testing to find baby daddies to make them pony up for child support. yeah, the M-F union is really the only way to go for child rearing

2) i wonder how much specific language was in their constitution in regards to slavery, voting rights for women and minorities?

cowards, the lot of them.

I don't get your logic. I dont know anyone who thinks those people on Maury are anything but a disgrace. Nobody encourages that shit. Why would you point to that behavior to try and justify same sex couples having children?

Not all missing father/divorce/abuse scenarios end up on TV either. There's too many of them. I think she was just pointing out the extreme of what is a very real aspect of American life. I can't figure how anybody can think it makes sense to create laws protecting marriage and children from gay people.

"Run, Timmy, run!"