NY State High-Court Nixes Same-Sex Marriage

[Brian]

It's been mentioned in a few of the other threads of the last few days, but I think it is worthy of it's own thread... So below are links to information on the court decision out of New York.

In a nutshell, on July 6 The New York Court of Appeals ruled by a 4-2 margin that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples. It's all so surprising to me considering New York's reputation for being a liberal state, and recent decisions in Massachusetts.

News Reports and Articles About The Decision:
http://bialogue.livejournal.com/3637.html
http://www.nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7924
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/07/06/1

Reaction, Action Alerts and Relevant Sites:
Report from the rally of 6-Jul-06 from a bi perspective - Sheela Lambert (http://bialogue.livejournal.com/3849.html#cutid1)
New York Area Bisexual Network (NYABN) (http://www.nyabn.org/index.html)
http://www.bialogue.org/
http://www.prideagenda.org/default.htm

Bisexual.com has sent prideagenda.org a donation to help with the fight. I ask, what else can we all do to help?

- Drew :paw:

[Long Duck Dong]

I don't live in the usa, I live in new zealand where a few months ago, the civil union bill was passed as law

the LGBT coomunities organised a few marchs, but their single greatest weapon was simple, the right to vote......and they spoke with that

in new zealand, we have about 130 politicians to 4 million people... but the govt likes to have most of their party in govt, and so they don't listen to the people, they listen to the next chance of holding their jobs

I am not sure how it works in the usa,but from what i can gather, the usa vote doesn't carry that much weight..... so I will shut up until i can come up with a better idea

[ScifiBiJen]

What a shame.
Still waiting on a decision from the courts in New Jersey (my own state).
Maybe Somewhere will decide in favor of same sex marriages....

[Nara_lovely]

I take heart in the fact it wasn't a complete agreement. The topic is everywhere, the thoughts, discussions and debates continue.

For me, that indicates a positive direction....results will flow eventually.

[littlerayofsunshine]

Its very sad. :(

[canuckotter]

Honestly, I'm wondering if the Americans are suffering from Canadian progress. Ten years ago, Canada would have probably done the same sort of silly things if anyone had suggested gay marriage, and now it's a done deal and the population as a whole has largely settled down about it, other than a few crackpots.

In five or ten years time, I think gay marriage would largely pass in the US. Kids these days are smarter about this stuff than they were a few decades ago; they may not like queer folks, but at least they're a lot more likely to acknowlege that it's none of their business, and to respect the need for equality. Right now they're kids; in five years, a lot of them would be of voting age, and a lot of the older folks (who are more likely to oppose gay marriage) would have died off.

I think the conservatives who're strangling America have seen the progress made in Canada and elsewhere in the world and realise that the same progress is being made down there, despite their best efforts to butcher the soul of the US. So rather than closing their eyes and plugging their ears and hoping for the "problem" to go away, they decided to confront it dead-on now, while they still ahve the numbers to win.

[jcorlando]

Remember under this administration, civil rights have been rolled back in a defacto way, even the courts decided the election of 2000, eroding the significance of the popular vote, if it had any. Now everything the neocons want gets passed eventually. Take heart, same sex unions, 'legal' or not have been around as long as humanity is old.

[JohnnyV]

Okay, I am going to try not to write too much about this, but since I'm a New Yorker, I've been swirling in the maelstrom on this issue.

The NY decision is particularly bad for the gay marriage movement precisely because the logic behind the decision was not necessarily right-wing in nature. It was not a fundamentalist or Christian argument against marriage, nor was it a condemnation of homosexuality.

Rather, the court decision, first and foremost, rejected the idea that courts can decide such an important social question. With the NY court of appeals being one of the flagships of the judicial system, this means that the approach activists have used up until now -- to sue government officials, as it succeeded in Massachusetts -- has been junked based on solid legal and democratic reasoning.

We have to go to the legislature now, which means, as the judges implied, having to convince the people of New York, rather than a small group of judges, that this is what they want marriage to mean from now on.

In some ways, the decision to send the problem to the legislature makes sense and exposes a problem in the arguments put forward by gay marriage advocates. Why do we want gay marriage, especially in a state like New York where there are cities (like NYC) where they can get recognized domestic partnerships? The argument in New York was that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" were not good enough; this is very different from the argument in other states where gay advocates were simply fighting for any kind of legal recognition. Why do they need ownership of the word "marriage"?

Well, the argument from gay advocates is that legalizing marriage would create more acceptance of gays, and that "separate" terms for different kinds of marriage was akin to "separate but equal," the philosophy of segregation overturned in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a little bit of confusion in the arguments from gays and lesbians -- is gay marriage about getting equal social conditions or is it a symbolic fight for approval? The judges felt, and I slightly agree, that the case cannot be about both things at the same time, or it becomes contradictory.

The judges in New York seized upon a problem in the contradictions behind the legal logic of the plaintiffs. They came back and said, basically, if you want more acceptance from the public, why aren't you simply negotiating with the public instead of trying to force a political elite to impose a different mindset on them?

If it is about equality, they also implied, there simply isn't enough evidence that "upgrading" gay relationships from domestic partnerships to marriage will materially improve the conditions of anyone.

Lastly, the court decision in New York poses a serious problem because the judges introduced some objections to gay marriage that are liberal rather than conservative in nature. Co-opting some language from feminism, the judges basically stated that gender differences matter; that women and men are equal but different, and that children's lives are richer to the extent that they have exposure to both a woman and a man when they are growing up. The state has a right, the judge says, to encourage greater understanding of gender by defining marriage such that sustained interaction between opposite sexes is encouraged, especially in the home where children learn about gender and are socialized.

The judge basically did not believe that gays and lesbians are bad parents. The judge also acknowledged, in a sense, that children raised in gay and lesbian households are overall well-adjusted. But he did say that there is something cultural and social about gender that gets lost if the model of a family shifts, and we embrace the idea that a child can be socialized into civic life without being reared by two genders.

This is tough stuff to counteract, because a lot of the rhetoric is liberal. But I think the challenge may be good in the end, because it will force the proponents of gay maarriage to work through some of their own contradictions. One criticism I have had of the gay marriage lobby is that they constantly talk about gay and lesbian parents, without really explaining where the children of those gay and lesbian couples came from. If the children are the result of a former marriage of one of the partners, then why aren't the biological parents both involved in raising the child? If the children of two gay men are being raised without any knowledge of their biological mother, why is that? Has the mother been cut out through economic hardship and thereby exploited?

These are hard questions but things that will improve the rhetoric as we, as a movement, are forced to work through them.

Lastly, although Mass and NY are neighbors, their forms of liberalism are very different. NY's capital is ALbany, a small town surrounded by rural areas, whereas Mass' capital is Boston, home to more colleges per capita than any other city in the world. The judges live in the capital and are obviously affected by their surroundings. New York's legislature represents not only Manhattan, but blue collar union cities like Rochester and Buffalo, as well as staunch Catholic neighborhoods in Queens and Staten Island, and devoted Jewish suburbs in Long Island and Westchester, not to mention the small farming communities that make up 3-4 million of the state population.

Put simply, it is a long, long, difficult fight ahead. But I think it's a question of reorganizing, regrouping, and rethinking things. It can be won.

J



Honestly, I'm wondering if the Americans are suffering from Canadian progress. Ten years ago, Canada would have probably done the same sort of silly things if anyone had suggested gay marriage, and now it's a done deal and the population as a whole has largely settled down about it, other than a few crackpots.

In five or ten years time, I think gay marriage would largely pass in the US. Kids these days are smarter about this stuff than they were a few decades ago; they may not like queer folks, but at least they're a lot more likely to acknowlege that it's none of their business, and to respect the need for equality. Right now they're kids; in five years, a lot of them would be of voting age, and a lot of the older folks (who are more likely to oppose gay marriage) would have died off.

I think the conservatives who're strangling America have seen the progress made in Canada and elsewhere in the world and realise that the same progress is being made down there, despite their best efforts to butcher the soul of the US. So rather than closing their eyes and plugging their ears and hoping for the "problem" to go away, they decided to confront it dead-on now, while they still ahve the numbers to win.

[Mrs.F]

[QUOTE=JohnnyV]Okay, I am going to try not to write too much about this, but since I'm a New Yorker, I've been swirling in the maelstrom on this issue.

First....I think it's funny that we are not suppose to be seeing you on here and second you state your not going to write much.....LOL :rolleyes: It's so hard to stay away, isn't it??!!!!!!!!!!!

[Azrael]

I've been getting phone calls about similar ballot initiatives here in Florida. So sterile, the system they use. Press one if you agree, press two if you disagree with a computerized voice whose feelings can't be hurt. Arrggh :eek:

[deletetacount123]

I think its soooooooooooo stupid to ban Gay Marriages.... I mean, marriages is based on LOVE.... has nothing to do with the gender.... You get married cause your happy and so in love you want to spent the rest of your lives together.

I think a lot of people fail to see that.... Marriage has always been based on love. So, you fall in love with the same sex.... so what? as long as you two are happy and care about each other, thats all that matters.

I support gay marriages :-)

Tasha

[Diane54]

My only comment is
Why does anyone care who someone else marries?

what can be done?

[deletetacount123]

Ya, what you want to do should be your business... everyone should be happy.... not care what someone else thinks especially if those people are strangers.

[12voltman59]

While the rulings by the state supreme courts of New York and Georgia were judicial actions somewhat disconnected to what happens out in the "real world"; to those on the right who are stirred up about the issue of "gay marriage," this is only one part in their overall fight against homosexuality in general (bisexuality falls under the rubric of homosexuality by the reckoning of such individuals).

If you have not already done so--read my posting, "An Interesting Interview."

In that posting I include a link that brings you to a web page featuring both the transcript and streaming video of a segment that aired on the television program "Democracy Now!" from journalist Amy Goodman on Friday, July 7.

In the segment, Goodman and her co-host interview an author of a new book detailing the "war" that fundamentalist Christian leaders are waging against the "evils" of homosexuality.


I urge you all to click on the link to view the video segment if you are able to do so. If not, read the transcript of the interview they provide on the site and I also ask you to consider buying the book or checking it out from your local library when the book becomes available.

If your local library has no plans to acquire the book, pressure them to do so.

I know that I intend to get my hands on a copy in some fashion.

[csrakate]

Like Voltman mentioned...GA did the same thing...

[Driver 8]

Co-opting some language from feminism, the judges basically stated that gender differences matter; that women and men are equal but different, and that children's lives are richer to the extent that they have exposure to both a woman and a man when they are growing up.
Here's what baffles me about this line of reasoning.

It might make sense if this were, somehow, a question about same-sex couples becoming parents in the first place. But these cases involve couples who already have children. It's not as though denying their parents marriage will somehow move them into homes with opposite-sex parents.

[JohnnyV]

Here's what baffles me about this line of reasoning.

It might make sense if this were, somehow, a question about same-sex couples becoming parents in the first place. But these cases involve couples who already have children. It's not as though denying their parents marriage will somehow move them into homes with opposite-sex parents.


Good point, Driver. I think the problem is that the proponents of gay marriage muddled the issue a great deal with how they brought it to the court. There are gay couples in which one person has children from a former marriage, there are gay couples that do foster care, and then there are a growing number of gay couples who begin a relationship with the explicit intent of acquiring a baby. The third group of gay couples actually wants to promote a cultural mindset that says it's okay for Heather to have two mommies and no daddy, or two daddies or no mommy.

To be fair to the judge, he had to react to all these circumstances simultaneously, because of the way the gay marriage advocates presented their cases.

It will help a great deal if gay spokespeople separate the issues of gay marriage and gay parenting more clearly.

It will also help a great deal if gay spokespeople separate the issues of the three kinds of gay parenting I describe above.

I am 10000% for gay marriage. But I do have a problem with telling a large number of gay male couples that they are going to be able to get their hands on babies and then have their kids tell people they have no mother, only two fathers. Maybe that's the last vestige of conservative in me, but I think that runs the risk of creating a harmful system of adoption, and it opens the door to the exploitation of poor women who will probably have to sign contracts to give up all rights to their babies, simply for economic need.

Anyway, as we change gears and now turn to the legislature, I am feeling good about this. Elliot Spitzer, the frontrunner for governor in November, is on the side of gay marriage.

If New York passes a gay marriage clause through its legislature, it will be the FIRST state to have it passed based on a democratic measure endorsed fully by the people's representatives. That will send a much better precedent than Massachusetts. But to sell it to New York's people, it's important to present it as a case about MARRIAGE between two loving people, NOT about children, which confuses and clouds the question.

J

[littlerayofsunshine]

I am hoping for the best. I have already started teaching 2 of my children( 7 & 10 years old) about gays/lesbians/bisexual/transgendered. They asked the questions and I answer them in a very compassionate way. I feel that most negative gay thinking is learned. I am trying to raise my children to be as least prejudice (in all ways) as I can. So if gay marriage gets instituted before they reach voting age, they will be accepting of it, if not, maybe I am raising some future leaders of American and they will change what needs to be changed.

I have no problems with gay or lesbian parents. Most that I have seen have really thought about how they plan to raise the child. They have close friends and family they can rely on for advice and or rolemodeling. The most important things that a child needs to thrive, is love, support, acceptance, teachings and boundaries. So many kids need a home, so many kids need love. And one of the sad things that exist, is that most homeless teen males are gay or bi. I was in the youth system when I was a young teen and saw first hand how bad it can be. For all the children.

Sorry for rambling

[12voltman59]

There are also moves out there in some states that by legislation or by ballot inititative, that if successful, would prohibit anyone who is anything other than straight from being able to adopt children or to be granted any form of parental or custodial rights over children---

This is in the early stages at this point--sort of in the trial balloon stage in most places and just starting to be bounced around in state legislative committees and such in order to draft the wording and details of these possible laws.

The model of these things is to pass it in one state--draw the customary legal challenges and get the case heard in the appealate courts in order to see where the courts are at in terms of what is "permissible" or not. Once that is done--they go back to the drawing board--fine tune the thing then it starts making its way as legislation from state to state.

"War up north, war down south, war in the east--war in the west---everyhere it's a war...rumors of a war...."
Bob Marley

[Brian]

A very, very interesting post JohhnyV - I've been meaning to comment on it for days, but been too busy. You shed a lot of light on the issue for me. Some thoughts...


although Mass and NY are neighbors, their forms of liberalism are very different. NY's capital is ALbany, a small town surrounded by rural areas, whereas Mass' capital is Boston, home to more colleges per capita than any other city in the world. The judges live in the capital and are obviously affected by their surroundings. New York's legislature represents not only Manhattan, but blue collar union cities like Rochester and Buffalo, as well as staunch Catholic neighborhoods in Queens and Staten Island, and devoted Jewish suburbs in Long Island and Westchester, not to mention the small farming communities that make up 3-4 million of the state population. Very interesting and educating for me.


In some ways, the decision to send the problem to the legislature makes sense and exposes a problem in the arguments put forward by gay marriage advocates. 12voltman posted a link the other day to an audio interview (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1439), where the speaker made the point that the silver lining of the decision is that now we have to go to the legislature rather than rely on the courts in NY. This has the advantage of countering the conservatives' allegation that GLBT rights are being forced on the populace through "activist judges". I wonder if the majority of New Yorkers would support same-sex marriage laws? The other problem with that approach is that liberal same-sex marriage laws can always be repealed and they don't really define a human right. Are you really free if you have been granted freedom only by the grace of the majority of the day, and it can be repealed at any time?


Lastly, the court decision in New York poses a serious problem because the judges introduced some objections to gay marriage that are liberal rather than conservative in nature. Co-opting some language from feminism, the judges basically stated that gender differences matter; that women and men are equal but different, and that children's lives are richer to the extent that they have exposure to both a woman and a man when they are growing up. The state has a right, the judge says, to encourage greater understanding of gender by defining marriage such that sustained interaction between opposite sexes is encouraged, especially in the home where children learn about gender and are socialized.

The judge basically did not believe that gays and lesbians are bad parents. The judge also acknowledged, in a sense, that children raised in gay and lesbian households are overall well-adjusted. But he did say that there is something cultural and social about gender that gets lost if the model of a family shifts, and we embrace the idea that a child can be socialized into civic life without being reared by two genders.

This is tough stuff to counteract, because a lot of the rhetoric is liberal. But I think the challenge may be good in the end, because it will force the proponents of gay maarriage to work through some of their own contradictions. One criticism I have had of the gay marriage lobby is that they constantly talk about gay and lesbian parents, without really explaining where the children of those gay and lesbian couples came from. If the children are the result of a former marriage of one of the partners, then why aren't the biological parents both involved in raising the child? If the children of two gay men are being raised without any knowledge of their biological mother, why is that? Has the mother been cut out through economic hardship and thereby exploited?

These are hard questions but things that will improve the rhetoric as we, as a movement, are forced to work through them. Again, very interesting and insightful to me.

I think we can win the argument on those terms however. Because much the same concerns were raised during the liberalization of divorce laws, and the arguments are based on stereotypes and generalizations - that children raised in same-sex households miss out on gender socialization that other children get and so on. Like you said the judge's reasoning there is very liberal in nature, and it's a very fine argument they're making there that comes dangerously close to making our own point, namely that the only reasons for opposing same-sex marriage (other than the religious ones) are based on stereotypes and generalizations. Can one discriminate against a minority because one sees subtle damage done to the social fabric based on stereotypes and generalizations? In Canada there is considerable legal precedence for rejecting arguments of that nature when it comes to the rights of a minority. Hopefully the legal minds working on this file can come back and undo the judges' thinking on this.


The judges in New York seized upon a problem in the contradictions behind the legal logic of the plaintiffs. They came back and said, basically, if you want more acceptance from the public, why aren't you simply negotiating with the public instead of trying to force a political elite to impose a different mindset on them? This one blows me away a bit (that the argument worked on 4 of 6 NY high court judges) and I think can easily be refuted. The same argument came from the right during the debate up here - the Supreme Court completely rejected it, and so did the Liberal government of the time. The majority cannot be trusted to grant equality to the minority all the time. That's why we have constitutions and high courts. Issues of human rights should not be based on polls and popularity contests - they should be decided on legal principle alone. I wonder if the conservatives' tactic of cowtowing judges by using the label "activist judges" had an effect here.

An additional thought... I wonder if the legal wizzes leading this fight should consider the freedom of religion angle? There are some churches who want to marry same-sex couples. They genuinely and honestly interpret the bible as endorsing same-sex couples. So can the government side with one interpretation of the bible and stop these churches from marrying same-sex couples? Of course the problem with that approach is the polygamy issue, and maybe this is why it has been shyed away from. But polygamy has it's own issues - 13 year old girls being brainwashed from birth until they are married off, for example - that same-sex marriage does not have. It's a risky strategy perhaps but it allows judges to take the side of religious freedom in support of same-sex marriage in two ways:

1. It accepts the principle that government cannot restrict human rights by endorsing one particular intepretation of the bible over others. The right would argue that might makes right, that left-leaning churches are in the minority, but let them make the argument that bullying is okay as long as it is done by the majority.

2. It accepts the argument from the right that marriage has a religious basis, and therefore governments should tread softly when dealing with it. And then it turns it around throws it back in their face, by saying government cannot tell a church who they can and cannot marry.

In other words, it drives a stake deep into the heart of the arguments of the religious right - who claim that their interpretation of the bible should be forced on all.

It might be time to play that card in the courts of NY, although it is risky.

- Drew :paw:

[JohnnyV]

All these strategic suggestions are good, Drew. I hope somewhere the gay marriage lobby's pundits are listening.

I think New York might pass the first same-sex marriage law through a legislature, and it will be a glorious day. Most polls indicate that New Yorkers are receptive to the idea, depending on how it's presented to them. Our election for governor is coming in November and Elliot Spitzer will probably win. He has said that he will sign a gay marriage law if the legislature passes it. Most legislators seem open to following the cue of the public.

In New York, I think the key is to focus on marriage as a way for two people to show love to each other. For once and for all, gays have to stop trying to use the marriage issue to make it seem as though they will be able to have everything that straight people have, including children that are fully theirs with no outside guardian involved. I think most straights who dislike gay marriage are reacting to their vague sense that gays want to take away something that they treasure about themselves; i.e., the unique mystery of men and women connecting, and the battle of the sexes. If gays can make it clear that they want to leave heteros their mystique about themselves and create a whole different kind of marriage, they will be better able to put voters in the necessary comfort zone.

But these are just my ideas. I could be all wrong. :)

J

[BfloBiFun]

As most people know last year it became legal :bigrin: now the fight is Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), to stop discrimination aganst gender expresion in NY