Breaking News: New York Court Uses Childbearing to Rule Against Guarantee of Same-Sex Marriage
The New York Court of Appeals this morning ruled that “the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples.”
Even more infuriatingly, they used what I call the supposed “heterosexual-marriage childbearing privilege,” to do so, saying, “There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children. . . . 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.”
Never mind that most of the lesbian and gay parents that I know are insistent upon having multiple role models of both genders for their children, whether this be grandparents, aunts and uncles, sperm donors or surrogates, or close friends. Never mind that scientific research has shown that children of same-sex couples are as well adjusted as any others, if not more so, and professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree.
My partner comments: “So if the benefit that a child receives from a home with both a man and a woman is so great, New York will stop granting divorces if the home has a child?”
The only good news, such as it is, is that “The court did not rule that the state should not or could not allow gay marriages, only that the state constitution did not require that it allow them.” This means it’s going to be a big fight in the Legislature now. I’m thinking all of us in New York should send our legislators pictures of our children.
On a more immediate note, the Empire State Pride Agenda is holding rallies across the state today to mark the ruling.
More news and analysis as it breaks.
Filed under: Parenting, Politics and Law
[...] Terrance at the Republic of T points out the incongruity between today’s New York State Court of Appeals ruling and the American Academy of Pediatrics statement this week on children in same-sex families: There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families. [...]
[...] I wrote at length yesterday of the disappointing New York same-sex marriage ruling. One new development is that lawyers in Massachusetts are now saying the ruling effectively prohibits New York same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Massachusetts law prevents out-of-state couples from marrying there if their home state does not permit their marriage. I’m no lawyer, but my interpretation of the New York ruling is that it doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage so much as declare that the legislature is not obligated to permit it. So the New York-Massachusetts saga, like that of the Yankees and Red Sox, may yet go extra innings. [...]
[...] The New York Court of Appeals ruling against same-sex marriage has one thing going for it, argues Evan Wolfson on Advocate.com. The Executive Director of Freedom to Marry says that because it’s based on the same tired arguments we’ve been hearing for years, and ignores the majority of medical and social evidence about children of LGBT parents, we have a good chance of making our case to the legislature. Both Wolfson and Susan Sommer, one of the lead attorneys in the case, note that the ruling not only ignores professional opinions in favor of LGBT parents, but is out of step with the direction of public opinion, which is gradually shifting in our favor. (Thanks to Heather Jensen at Freedom to Marry for pointing me to Wolfson’s article.) [...]