Yesterday, the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) said that it is not unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage. The basic premise of the decision was that marriage had been clearly defined 100 years ago as between a man and a woman (as the words "bride" and "groom" clearly imply), something that reflects societal values.
The other side of this issue, as it was written by the one of judges that disagreed, is that marriage has been re-thought in the twentieth century to reflect equal rights of men and women choosing to marry (For more information check out the New York Times).
The discrimination seems too obvious to me. As a society we choose not judge marriages between a man and a woman, even when that marriage is based on financial interest or abuse of any sort. In fact, we endorse this type of marriages because they do not challenge us and do not provoke fear that "we" may be gay or be the target of gay flirting. We allow children to live in abusive families so long as the parents are not of the same sex.
It seems rather hypocritical of our society, once again, to start wars in the name of freedom while restricting the freedom of expression, civil liberties, and right to choose of a even a small percentage of its people. How sad!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Two things. First, depending on your grasp of the English language, a better source is the Court of Appeals decision, here: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf
The other issue is that, while religios belief, disability, and many other things fall under protected classes in the NYS Constitution, sexual orientation does not. Therefore, Constitutionally, a sound argument can be made that there is a right ot discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. Of course, legally there is not, because of the Sexual orientation non-discrimination act passed a few years ago. That is a whole different complex case though.
The horrendous part is some of the arguments that Justice Smith uses in his majority opinion.
First, is the fact that marriage is an inducement for couples who have children to stay together for stability of the family. This seems logical; however, he says it is logical to only extend this protection to heterosexual couples because, "These couples can become parents by adoption, or by
artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they
do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse." So, we have officially stated, as a matter of policy, that marriage is around because people can't use condoms. On a side note, this does explain the conservatives abortion to birth control, as birth control prevents accidents and impulse, and therefore prevents marriage.
Let's now go to the second argument. "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from
having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what
both a man and a woman are like." The single largest problem with this argument is not the fact that it presents as fact a disproven argument from homophobes. Instead, it is that legal precedent is now being based on "intuition and experience". This is truly frightening. Legally, now if I have an intuition that Greek Cypriots have more fun, I do not need evidence, I just need one example and a hunch, and it is so. This is frightening.
So, now it goes to the Legislature. I'll just say, I'm proud to work for the man who has for years carried legislation that changes this unjust law and allows same-sex marriage.
Your site is on top of my favourites - Great work I like it.
»
Post a Comment