Gay Marriage Setback - Do You Still Love NYC?

Shame on you New York!

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."

From the New York Times:
"New York's highest court has harmed both the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and its reputation as a guardian of individual liberties by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

The 4-to-2 ruling by the Court of Appeals, which left standing the state's discriminatory marriage laws, comes at a time of intense debate over gay marriage. It leaves the highest court in Massachusetts as the only appellate court willing to require recognition of same-sex marriage.

The ruling involved some twisted legal reasoning. Judges on both sides agreed that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. But the majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, an appointee of Gov. George Pataki, said this fundamental right applies only to heterosexuals. It said limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on a sense that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, even without any hard evidence to show that.

Chief Judge Judith Kaye noted in her dissent that encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry could be good for the welfare of children, but said that does not mean that denying marriage to same-sex couples serves the interests of children in any fashion. She predicted that future generations would consider the new decision "an unfortunate misstep" and look upon barring gay marriage as akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. We agree.


But the immediate impact of the decision is to shift the battleground over gay marriage from the state courts to state lawmakers. Those who favor gay marriage need to quickly move past this week's disappointment and get energized. That also applies to those in the other states where courts have failed to uphold the rights of all Americans."