New York Court Refuses Gay Marriage Suits
By SABRINA TAVERNISE, NYTimes on the Web, April 1, 2005
The state's highest court said yesterday that it would not consider two lawsuits asserting that gay couples should have the right to marry before the cases were considered by an appeals panel, a ruling that will put off a final decision on the issue for months.
The decision by the Court of Appeals was a blow to supporters of gay marriage, who had hoped to get a quick answer to the question of whether the law allows same-sex couples to marry in New York State.
The two suits were taken directly to the high court rather than wending their way through the midlevel courts, as lawyers for both sides tried to hasten a definitive ruling.
In its ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeals said it could not accept direct appeals "when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved."
The suits, one in New York City and the other in Albany, will now be sent to different appeals panels, which will add at least six months to the legal life of the cases, experts said.
In February, a state judge in the suit against New York City ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who claimed that the city had violated their constitutional rights by refusing them marriage licenses.
That ruling, which was appealed immediately by the city, set off a debate among lawmakers, city officials and gay advocates over whether New York would be the next city, after Boston and San Francisco, to sanction gay marriages.
The issue put Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who is up for re-election this year, in a politically tight position.
He has said that though he personally backs gay marriage, he appealed the ruling because it was not legally sound, a decision that risked alienating the city's gay voters.
Responding to the ruling in a statement yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg reiterated his dual position.
On the one hand, he said, "it is my belief that marriage should be open to gay and lesbian couples," but on the other, "it is my responsibility to see that when licenses are issued, they are irrevocable and backed by the full weight of the law."
In his statement yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg said that if the courts ultimately ruled against gay couples, "we will work with the community and our state legislators to change that law."
Susan Sommer, a lawyer from Lambda Legal who represented the plaintiffs in the New York City case, expressed dismay that the case would take longer to be resolved, but said the rejection did not reflect on its merits.
"We're disappointed that it will take more time to resolve this case and secure important protections for same-sex couples and their families," she said in a statement.
"This procedural development has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case had argued that it qualified for speedy review because the state marriage law violated the plaintiffs' civil rights protected under the Constitution.
The court, apparently, did not find their argument a purely constitutional one.
A spokesman for the Court of Appeals said that an immediate review would have been unusual, as the court has accepted only 5 direct appeals out of 130 requests over the past 15 years.
In all, there are five gay marriage lawsuits in New York State courts. In addition to the New York City suit and the other suit named by the Court of Appeals, Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, three suits have been filed in Ithaca, Albany and Rockland County.
State judges have ruled against the gay plaintiffs in all but the New York City case, and all are relatively new filings.
Terence Kindlon, a lawyer for an Albany case not named in yesterday's ruling, said he had not sought a direct appeal because the chances of succeeding there were about as slim as the chances of putting "a laser beam through a keyhole from two blocks away."
|
