New York's Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision today that the state's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Beyond the constitutional question of whether or not a ban on gay marriage is a violation of their civil rights, the New York court said that "lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
Protecting children? What the ...? How does limiting marriage to heterosexual couples protect children? There are hundreds of thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex couples. How does denying their parents the same recognition, rights, and protections as any other family protect them? Do you want to protect children? Give their parents and guardians the ability to be a "legitimate" family!
The Court also upheld the marriage law because gay marriage is not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition." Until around 1863 freedom for African-Americans wasn't "deeply rooted" in our history or tradition. Until around 1919 women voting wasn't "deeply rooted" in our history or tradition.
These are the best arguments that the New York Court of Appeals can find to continue denying basic rights to at least 10% of the citizens of that state? Gay marriage may shock you, it may offend you, but it in no way harms you. Recognition of the basic human dignity of another person does not diminish your own; it enhances it.
Tags: New York, civil rights, gay marriage, courts, same sex unions, tradition, politics