New York Court of Appeals decides on gay marriage
By Vermont Renewal, www.cfacr.org

On July 6th, the New York Court of Appeals, the Empire State’s version of a supreme court, decided to follow the New York Constitution, respect its legislature and respect the will of its citizens and decided against imposing gay marriage on New Yorkers. 

In a decision that surprised conservatives and “shocked and dismayed” gay activists, calling the decision “insulting”, the New York Court of Appeals went back to basics, also concluding that any definition change should be done by the Legislature. You mean a court found that elected officials are the ones who should decide public policy? Imagine the novelty of that! 

The following is an excerpt from the decision that reads like a Vermont Renewal amicus brief. The Court concluded that there was a rational basis to conclude that marriage should remain an institution between one man and one woman. The New York decision points out the one central and unavoidable constant why this should be the case…procreation and the protection of children.  

Excerpt......

“We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. 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. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

"There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.

"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. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.”