A New York state court ruled today that gay couples must be allowed to marry in that state. Like the decision in Massachusetts, this decision is based upon the NY state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, so it only is enforcable in that state. But it is still an enormously important ruling. The judge, Doris Ling-Cohan, correctly said, "Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love." There simply is no rational reason why gay couples should be denied that opportunity when they are every bit as capable of making that loving commitment as straight couples are, and no less deserving of the wide range of legal and financial protections that go along with it. I love the reaction of the couple who filed the suit:
"I was even more moved than I thought I'd be when I heard about this ruling. All of us cried - me, Mary Jo and our 15-year-old daughter. For the first time, our family is being treated with the respect and dignity that our friends, coworkers and neighbors automatically have," said Jo-Ann Shain, a 51-year-old New York City resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Mary Jo Kennedy, 49. "Last week, Mary Jo and I celebrated our 23rd anniversary together, but we've never had all the protections and rights that come with marriage. We need these protections to take responsibility for each other and for our daughter, and we are enormously grateful that the court saw that and said our family should be treated equally."
I love the fact that Shain pointed out that she and her partner and the daughter they have raised are a family. Once again, this example puts the lie to the false claim that the religious right opposes gay marriage because it supports "family values". That is a lie. They value only those families that look like theirs, and they will casually and blithely deny other families the kind of legal protections they take for granted for themselves. I hope this ruling stands up in court. It is one more step down the road to the inevitable recognition that gay families are no less deserving of recognition and protection than mine is.
Naturally, the Worldnutdaily is furious about it, and the opponents of gay marriage are trotting out the same old bad arguments against it:
Staver contends the state "has an obvious interest in preserving traditional marriage and in promoting the best family arrangement - one with a mom and a dad - for our children and society."
The Staver in question is Matt Staver, President of the terribly misnamed Liberty Council and the genius behind what was simply one of the dumbest legal arguments in American history. He asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling because it violated the Constitution's guarantee that each state would have a republican form of government. The Supreme Court did manage to stop laughing long enough to turn down the request. And here, he trots out the same absurd argument that gay marriage is bad because marriage is good. Well, duh. Yes, marriage is a very good thing for society for any number of reasons. But the notion that you are "protecting" marriage by preventing gays from getting married is just plain stupid. Allowing gays to get married won't change a single thing about any marriages between straight couples, which will continue to either thrive or fail regardless of whether the gay couple down the block is allowed to get married or not.
- Log in to post comments
Ed:
I just pulled the case off westlaw, I can send it to you if you like.
E
I just pulled the case off westlaw, I can send it to you if you like./i>
Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Man, I love having friends with Westlaw and Lexis access. I just gotta talk one of them into just giving me the password so I can run up their monthly account balance. :)
This is nice to see for several reasons. First, it is the right thing to do, from a constitutional standpont. Moreover, it should be evident that there is one aspect of this case that Shrub and his buddies on the political religious right can't complain about: that the judge was not elected. From the Lambda Legal press release on the case:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1634
I wonder what they'll end up complaining about instead.
I haven't seen a copy of the opinion yet. I'll be interested in taking a look at it.
Mea Culpa ...
I had only emailed the case to myself -- without reading it -- when I offered to send it to you. The "Hernandez v. Robles" I found was a different decision on the same matter, in which three state legislators (one of whom also moved the Court as a business owner), the chairman of the Conservative Party (as a business owner only), and the New York Family Policy Council (as a non-profit "educational" organization) filed a motion to intervene in the main action.
Each movant wanted to be made a party to the action, instead of just filing amicus curiae briefs. In order for them to intervene "as of right," the intervenors would have to show that "the representation of the [their] interest[s] by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person[s] is or may be bound by the judgment."
Two of the would-be intervenors are the sponsors of a Senate bill that would prohibit gay marriage. The business owners claim that they have "religious and moral objections to same-sex marriage, [and so] they have a religious and an economic interest in not being required to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of employees." All claim that the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriage is vested in the legislature.
The Court declined to allow the movants to intervene as parties, but permitted them to appear as amici.
The decision is interesting in its own right, so I'll send it along. As soon as the main decision is published, I'll send that one, too.
E
raj:
I am sure they will not let some annoying facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant about judicial activism. Since THEY did not personally vote for the judge, she will be, in their view, an "unelected" judge forcing secularism and/or homosexuality and/or anti-christian bias (take your pick) on the country (even though this is only a NY case).
I am glad you pointed this out. I hope this tidbit gets mentioned whenever some right-wing moron starts to spout off on the topic.
Thanks.
Well, interestingly the "pro-family" movement is upset about Connecticut as well, where a civil union bill, a equal marriage bill AND a potential anti-gay amendment to the Constitution are being bandied about the legislature. There is also a court case in CT, but this might be the first state to create at least a civil union arrangement before a court requires it.
So, are the right-wingers happy that the elected representatives of the people are taking on this issue without an edict from the courts? Of course not:
"Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said he believes his group and others can successfully block a marriage bill or a civil union bill if the majority of Connecticut voters get involved and call their legislators.
Some same-sex marriage foes, including Brown, believe an amendment to the state's constitution is needed to stop same-sex marriage in Connecticut. Such an amendment, however, would need to be approved by the voters.
'This isn't a partisan issue. Democrats, Republicans, black, white, Hispanic _ in any category of American life, people support protecting marriage,' Brown said. 'If we can get a vote of the people, I feel very confident we can protect marriage.'" (from Newsday.com, February 6 edition, URL is http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ct-xgr--capitolfocus0206feb06%2C0%2C7592059.story - don't know enough HTML to make it work, though)
Of course the "pro-family" movement, which also conveniently forgets that gay people are also part of all the different family structures in this country (including some leading conservatives), wants to get the people out to vote - that way they can use their scare tactics to sway the vote against gay people.
And of course, these votes are always scheduled to coincide with the vote for representatives, senators, or judges to bring out the bigot vote.