NY State Court of Appeals Rules on Gay Marriages

In sum, the Court has declared that the NY State Constitution does not compel same-sex marriages. This is what I've gathered sofar -- the legislature hasrational reasons for not extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. The Court reasons as such: 1) marriage encourages straight couples to commit to long-term relationships where children are involved and, therefore, promotes a more stable environment for children; and 2) although it was asserted that childrenare not necessarilyadvantagedin being raised by an opposite-sex union as opposed to a same-sex union, the legislature has reason not to be entirely convinced of this.And further, although it wasargued to the Courtthatprejudice against same-sex marriages is motivated by the sameprejudice thatencouraged prohibition ofinterracial marriages in the past, the Court distinguished prejudice in the form of racism as, in essence, being more valid due to its long provenhistory. And I quote:Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals... If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attacked were founded on nothing but prejudice ... we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history...Racism has been recognized for centuries -- at first by a few people, and later by many more -- as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation ...It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past [emphasis added]... But the traditional definition ofmarriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude. [Emphasis added]...Well. I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. [Insert heavy sarcasm.]ETA: Just to be clear here. Unfortunately, idealistic as I endeavor to be at times, I am quite grounded in reality. And cynicism. I was NOT surprised at this outcome. Disappointed? Yes. Deeply. However, what I found most appaling was the way in which the majority of the Courtarrivedat this conclusion, which was archaic reasoning and simply abominable. Quoting Justice Kaye's dissenting opinion:"For most of us, leading a full life includes establishing a family. Indeed, most New Yorkers can look back on, or forward to, their wedding as among the most significant events of their lives. They, like plaintiffs, grew up hoping to find that one person with whom they would share their future, eager to express their mutual lifetime pledge through civil marriage. Solely because of their sexual orientation, however -- that is, because of who they love -- plaintiffs are denied the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. This state has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers.Sadly, the court today retreats from that tradition."In addition, if you wish to offer comments here, do me a favor and don't pretend or act like you know more than I do. Because even ifyou do, I won't appreciate the condescending tone. It's called human nature.Take this as a warning: delete button the first time, expect snarkiness the next.