New York: Court Voids Ruling Backing Gay Marriage

An appellate court yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted same-sex marriage in New York City.

By a 4-1 majority, the appellate panel not only rejected the lower court's ruling that state law forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but said that the state had a legitimate and rational interest in promoting heterosexual marriage...

"Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate," said the panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. "It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship."

------

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg reiterated yesterday that he was personally in favor of permitting same-sex marriage, and that the city had appealed the lower court decision only as a way of clarifying the law.

"As I have said, this issue should be decided by the state's highest court, and I assume today's decision will be appealed," Mr. Bloomberg said in a written statement. "If today's decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals, I will urge the Legislature to change the State's Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/nyregion/09gays.html

:mad: :mad: :mad:

...if this were New York circa 1940 he would fight a court order banning racial discrimination so that it could be made even more clear that "discrimination is bad", even if it meant that blacks would have to wait another twenty years to ride in the front of the bus?

Sorry Mayor, but this smacks of Jesse Helms' argument that the Civil Rights Movement was composed of Yankee troublemakers who were rushing things, and that the South just needed "a little more time" to bring equal rights to "dem colored fo'k".

The time to fight discrimination- ANY discrimination- is NOW. Period. End of story.

Evil Kumquat

Thanks, Mayor.

Using that justification, any childless couple is not a legitimate union, at least not when held up to their standards.

They can work to "give the opinion of the Court against gay marriage the full force of law." The initiative should allow only couples capable of procreating to get married, and punish married couples who can not or will not procreate.

My girlfriend had her tubes tied after our second child, so now I have the best State-sponsored excuse for NOT getting married!

I cannot wait to resume a hedonistic, swinging-bachelor lifestyle!

Evil Kumquat

Yup, uuummmm, that's not all . . . because in a footnote the majority opined,

"(T)he State (of New York) does not have the same interest in sanctioning marriages between couples who are incapable of procreating as it does with opposite-sex couples."

(Hernandez et al v. Robles et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. #Slip Op. 09436, December 8, 2005), n. 7, http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_09436.htm as last visited Sunday, December 11, 2005)

Thus, this court stated that New York people who want to marry and who are incapable of having children do not rise to the same level of importance and state constitutional protection as do New York people who want to marry and are capable of having children. Think about it. How illogical, oppressive, and reactionary can these judges get? Talk about stupidity! YIKES, this is common sense . . . and this is first-year law school stuff!

I read the entire opinion. Overall, I'd say that this mid-tier appellate court opinion is slipshod work at best and at least it's result-oriented which is the worst anyone can say about a court's written opinion and the judges who wrote and concurred with it. In other words, its twisted (il)logic to achieve the end goal that they wanted.

Be thankful that New York has another tier -- its highest state court -- that may review this case. In New York, the highest court is called the "Court of Appeals," nope, not the supreme court. Let's hope that New York's highest court justices are clear and unbiased legal thinkers.



________________________

edited to add: Mayor Bloomberg is twisting on his own petard. Geezuz. Did Bloomberg hafta challenge these New York City same-sex marriages in court in the first instance? No, he did not. And, now Bloomberg is stating he is for same-sex marriage?

"As I have said, this issue should be decided by the state's highest court, and I assume today's decision will be appealed," Mr. Bloomberg said in a written statement. "If today's decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals (which is NY's highest court), I will urge the Legislature to change the State's Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage."

Is there something in the water in New York? Bill Weld (R, NY), recently, did a 180° on this subject too. Ah, politics and its many twists and turns.