Yeah, fuck you too, NY Court of Appeals

The BBQ Pit
#1

In a 4-2 decision, NY’s highest court ruled that the state constitution does not mandate that the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and that it is up to the Legislature to decide whether to authorize such marriages. This rant comes from the perspective of not having read the majority decision and is based entirely on reactions to the linked news story, so perhaps if I read the decision I would be swayed by the astute legal reasoning of the majority. But given the bits from the decision quoted, somehow I find that…pretty fucking unlikely.

So yeah, majority judges, fuck your bullshit “it’s rational for the legislature to decide that it’s better for a child to have a mother and a father” excuse. Fuck your “they could rationally decide that it’s more important to provide stability for mixed-sex couples.” How the fuck exactly, if you’re going to appeal to the welfare of children, is it rational to disadvantage some children based on who their parents are? What possible rational sense can it make to promote some stable couples but not others?

Tha majority says that if they were convinced that the ban were based on nothing other than ignorance and prejudice then they’d strike it down in a minute. Well it ain’t based on anything else, assholes. Which, if you weren’t willfully indulging your own bigotry and ignorance, you’d know.

So fuck you, fuck your ignorance, fuck your stupid “reasoning,” fuck your refusal to recognize fundamental inequality and using your power to rectify it, and fuck you again.

And to answer Bricker before he even posts, we’re all very well aware that you say you support marital rights for same-sex couples (as long as the word “marriage” is reserved for the straighties), and we all know that you believe that courts shouldn’t be the ones making the decision on SSM. We’ve all read it in every other thread you’ve ever entered on the topic so really no need to spew it here.

#2

The Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, a remarkable woman who has reformed the courts in NY in many ways, wrote the dissent. I think she’s an amazing person–very forward-thinking and very tough.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is a former co-worker of mine. She and her partner have been together for 25 years and have a teenaged daughter. It galls me that they cannot be considered a family legally in most of this country. So, I’m with you on the “fuck the majority judges” thing.

#3

How about “Fuck the Legislature for Not Reflecting the Will of the People?”

The thing about the Court is, it cannot make law, just interpret what’s out there already. History (both legislative and interpretive) guide here. Based on the laws of the State of New York the Court acted the way it did.

Sometimes it really IS up to the Legislature to act. Separation of powers exists for a reason. Separation of powers is why we do NOT have a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Not to rain on your parade, and you can go ahead and castigate the Court all you want, but it is not the Court’s job to make rules based on the will of the people- that’s the Legislature’s job.

I support civil unions (or whatever you want to call them, as long as they confer the exact same rights onto same-sex couples as they do onto married couples). But the Court of Appeals is not the venue for the change I want.

You’re much better served channeling your energy into alerting/educating your legislators than vilifying people who did their job well.

#4

I don’t know, Otto. I’m almost with you on this one-- almost. But the Court didn’t say quite what you said it said, even just from reading your cite, so I don’t think one needs to read the whole opinion to find the legal justification:

Additionally, they said (per your cite):

Which I think is most likely true (note the emphasis I added). And, of course, you’re misinterpreting the term “rational” as used in this ruling. In the context of the legal argument, it doesn’t mean what it typically means in everyday language. I’m sure you’ve seen that explanation before. So, on a board that’s dedicated to fighting igonorance, I don’t think it’s reasonable for you to insist on ranting without rebuttal when the argument you use to back up your rant isn’t quite accurate.

Still, I can understand why this decision is a big disappointment for you. The CA Supreme Court should be weighing in on SSM this month, too, so we may be going thru this again shortly.

#5

The decision is both correct and obvious. Eligibility to be married is a matter for legislation. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law in specific cases, not to set policy.

That said, I hope to see gay marriage permitted in the proper way (by amending current statute) as soon as possible. But I don’t have my hopes up. :frowning:

IMHO, a far better solution would be to remove the state from the institution of marriage entirely. You want to get married? Poof! you’re married. Have whatever religious or secular ceremony you like, and do all the legal shenanigans via constracts and whatnot. Probably too much trouble, though.

#6

Last time I checked, all the evidence pointed at exactly the opposite conclusion. Every study done one children raised by gay couples has determined that, on the whole, they tend to do better than children raised by heterosexual couples. Obviously, this is slightly skewed by the fact that gay couples can’t get pregnant “accidentally,” and are therefore less likely to be abusive or neglectful because they didn’t want the kid in the first place, but all things being equal, there is absolutely no evidence at all that children are better off being raised by opposite sex parents than by same sex parents.

I do agree that, in general, this is something better decided by the legislature than by the courts. However, the reasoning provided by this court is singularly unpersuasive.

#7

Emphasis added. But that’s precisely what’s meant by “all things being equal”, so you can’t just dismiss that part. We’d probably have to wade thru all the documents filed by both parties to see what the justices saw in terms of actual studies, though.

#8

Has anyone yet tried to being a case before the courts making all childless marriages invalid? After all, the only reason I see stated (they won’t touch religion, the real reason) is that marriage is for the purpose of raising children.

Why doesn’t someone bring a case demanding, then, that all straight couples who cannot have children or do not want to have children have their marriages annulled?

#9

The court didn’t say that. Can you quote the section where you think they did?

#10

The idea actually came not from this decision, but a long article in the NYT earlier this week (or last week) where that was the main argument of the anti-gay marriage people interviewed.

#11

I’m not ignoring it. The studies consistently show that children raised by same-sex couples are better off than children of opposite-sex couples. That bit you underlined is why I’m not arguing that homosexuals are inherently better parents than heterosexuals. All things being equal, there is no difference in the welfare and development of a child who is raised by gay parents and one who was raised by straight parents. Things being unequal, in this case, skews the results in favor of gay couples.

#12

I’m no fan of Bricker, but this characterization of him is simply untrue. Bricker hasn’t held the opinion that the word marriage should be reserved for same-sex couples since September, 2004. (emphasis in the following quote is mine)

And he’s repeated that concession in several subsequent threads since that time. Had you actually read every other thread he’s ever entered on the topic, you’d’ve known that.

#13

We don’t know which studies the court was presented with, or if the court thought it necessary to defer to any studies at all. Note that they said that the legislature could “rationally believe…”, keeping in mind what the term “rational” means in a legal context (see the link in my first post). IANAL, but I don’t think that the court goes out and reviews the scientific literature beyond what is presented by either party in a case like this. I’ll see if I can find the text of the decision later on tonight and read it for further clarification.

#14

I’m arguing against the concept in general, not its specific application in this court case. There may be mitigating circumstances for the court using it in their decision (and, I confess, the entire discussion about what “rational” means in a legal sense goes right over my head) but that doesn’t change the fact that the concept is undermined by virtually every study done on the subject.

#15

That would be a massive propaganda coup for the anti-gay marriage people.

“Look, see, they DO want to destroy marriage for the rest of us! Proof! Proof!!”

It’s a good idea in theory, but not against this particular opposition. It has no chance of actually passing (not because of the law, but because no lawmaker will be for it) so it’s only use would be as a means of convincing others of the rightness of the pro-gay marriage position; I don’t think it’d get anyone to move from one side to the other, but it might get “neutrals” to move more towards the anti- side. Aggressive acts generally aren’t good publicity.

#16

You’re right, of course . . . Look what happens at the attempts to overturn the 1950s Commie-hatin’ cramming of God onto our money and our Pledge of Allegiance . . .

#17

All bets are off when patriotism (actual or forced) gets into the mix.

#18

Yup, fuck them too, but they didn’t happen to shit on gay people today.

Not having read the state constitution, I can only assume that there’s some sort of equal protection clause in it. How this can’t be an equal protection violation is beyond my poor powers to comprehend. And the court said in its opinion that regardless of how the laws of the state happen to read, it would invalidate a SSM ban if it were convinced that it was based in nothing but bigotry. Well, it is based in nothing but bigotry and the court didn’t invalidate it.

Thank you, I know what rational basis means in the legal context. What I am saying is that the same tired crap the court offered up about children having mommies and daddies and what not isn’t rational under either legal or common parlance. Treating children unequally because of who their parents are is not rational in either sense. Giving some couples advantages because they are mixed-sex is not rational in either sense.

One purpose of the courts is to strike down unconstitutional legislation, which the court would have done had they not decided that screwing over children because of their parents is rational.

I withdraw the note with apologies.

#19

I was a little disappointed, but not at all surprised. The courts have become extremely gunshy about making big, sweeping decisions that make big changes in society. Fortunately, there is another avenue to pursue. We can change it in the Legislature. And I, for one, welcome our new democratically-elected overlords.

#20

Well, I certainly agree that there is no evidence that gay parents are any worse than straight parents, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that, all things being equal, kids are better off with two opposite sex parents. That would seem to the be the default assumption, and I’d have to see some real proof before I accept that the opposite is true. But I haven’t read virtually every study done on the subject, and I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just saying I haven’t seen the data myself-- and I doubt the court has, either.