New York’s Ruling on Gay Marriage & the Imperative to Move the Debate from Courts to Legislatures

Just over a month ago in making the case for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Bush said, “An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.” Like the president, many other supporters of this gratuitous amendment believe it is necessary to prevent state courts from requiring their jurisdictions to accord same-sex unions the same status as traditional marriage.

Well, that argument became less compelling this morning when New York’s highest court ruled “that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.” In a statement, New York Governor George Pataki said, “I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage.” He’s right; the legislature, rather than the courts, is the appropriate forum to decide such issues. While gay groups are reacting in a juvenile manner with Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese calling the court’s reasoning “archaic” and “rooted in ignorance,” they also seem to have heard the words of the Empire State’s Republican Governor. They are vowing to work with the state legislature. In a release a little less shrill than HRC’s, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman, for example, calls on the Democratic gubernatorial candidate and the State Assembly Speaker to take action. Kudos to these two for looking to the elected state legislature to pass what they call “marriage equality” legislation. While Solomonese is right to cite the numerous child welfare and psychological organizations which support same-sex marriage, he’s wrong to fault the court for ignoring their findings. It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy. it would be entirely appropriate, however, for advocates of gay marriage to present this social research (of the aforementioned groups) to elected legislators (and the people).

I would also hope that gay leaders in the Empire State would, as their neighbors in Connecticut, also consider civil unions which stand a great chance of passage than does gay marriage. Perhaps they will find that proposal inadequate, but it does seem, from the polls I’ve seen, that there is a consensus building in a number of states in the Northeast and on the West Coast for state recognition of same-sex civil unions. State recognition of same-sex civil unions would be a big step in the right direction.

I’m not as upset by this decision as are many gay activists and organizations. I believe they have picked the wrong fora to make their case for gay marriage. They should be going to legislatures instead of courts.

oops, I left off part of the article:

Had New York’s Court of Appeals ruled in favor of gay marriage, the decision would have rallied gay marriage opponents and strengthened the case for a federal constitutional amendment. Now that argument is considerably weakened. And the option still remains for advocates of gay marriage to make their case before the legislature — and the people to whom the elected legislators are responsible.

Despite the unfortunate rhetoric of the releases of HRC and NGLTF, I am delighted to see that their leaders are now looking to these legislators to make that case. Let’s hope this defeat convinces them to spend more time promoting gay marriage in legislatures and other popular fora rather than in courts of law.

I am surprised you have not been zotted YET for repeatedly and persistently attempting to promote homosexual sex premised rights and privileges...

What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.