http://billjames.org/ListBuilder/listbuilder-email-7-7-2006%20-%20NY%20Surpeme%20Court%20bans%20homo%20marriage.htm
NY Supreme Court upholds ban on
homosexual marriage
Cites "welfare of children" and
other factors as a valid
governmental duty in denying
homosexuals the right to marry
(same rules would apply in
denying them the right to adopt
or be foster parents)
Cites homosexual relationships
as "unstable" (see
*note below)
Cites society's belief that it
is better for government to
encourage growing up with a
"Mother and Father"
"a child benefits from having
before his or her eyes, every
day, living models of what both
a man and a woman are like."
I
await the inevitable
"spin" from liberals on
how it doesn't actually
say what it said......
The
same rule about children
also apply to having
children out of wedlock
and individuals who
shack up outside of
marriage
*Note: The ruling below
was the ultimate in
Alice in Wonderland
verbiage. while using
the word "could" it laid
out a hypothetical for
the NY legislature
claiming that it "could"
have restricted marriage
to a man and woman
because heterosexuals
are "unstable". Of
course, in reaching this
conclusion they then
state that would be a
reason for determining
that homosexuals don't
have the right the
marry. After that mental
back flip they then cite
that it is better to
have a mom and Dad and
say that banning
homosexual marriage is
constitutional.
The
ruling is what one might
expect from New York.
While it gets the job
done, it takes great
pain to try and spin it
as something it is not.
What it really is, is
saying that it is OK to
discriminate against
individuals who are
homosexuals because the
lifestyle and behavior
is not something society
and government should or
would support.
They
couldn't bring
themselves to say that
directly so they did it
using the through the
looking glass approach.
Whatever it takes, guys.
From the family values
side of the isle -
thanks.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf
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.
Decided
July 6, 2006