Gay Marriage Setback
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, July 7, 2006
New York's highest court has harmed
both the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and its reputation as a
guardian of individual liberties by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
The 4-to-2 ruling by the Court of Appeals, which left standing the state's
discriminatory marriage laws, comes at a time of intense debate over gay
marriage. It leaves the highest court in Massachusetts as the only
appellate court willing to require recognition of same-sex marriage.
The ruling involved some twisted legal reasoning. Judges on both sides
agreed that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the highest level of
constitutional protection. But the majority decision, written by Judge
Robert S. Smith, an appointee of Gov. George Pataki, said this fundamental right
applies only to heterosexuals. It said limiting marriage to opposite-sex
couples could be based on a sense that children benefit from being raised by two
natural parents, even without any hard evidence to show that.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye noted in her dissent that encouraging opposite-sex
couples to marry could be good for the welfare of children, but said that does
not mean that denying marriage to same-sex couples serves the interests of
children in any fashion. She predicted that future generations would
consider the new decision "an unfortunate misstep" and look upon barring gay
marriage as akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. We agree.
But the immediate impact of the decision is to shift the battleground over gay
marriage from the state courts to state lawmakers. Those who favor gay
marriage need to quickly move past this week's disappointment and get energized.
That also applies to those in the other states where courts have failed to
uphold the rights of all Americans.
|
