Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: New York Gay Rights Case Seems Like a Loser
I know it’s a little early to be making predictions regarding the gay rights case in front of the New York Court of Appeals. But from what I’ve read, the court has a lot of ways to rule in our favor.
The court has two main arguments that will allow it to find that the gay rights extensions passed in New York will remain: First, the court could outright rule that gay marriages in other states will be recognized in New York because out of state marriages, unless contrary to public policy, are always recognized in state. This has been extended to include marriages between first cousins and underage marriages historically.
The other side will argue that calling something a marriage doesn’t make it a marriage, and New York should not succumb to the arbitrary labels chosen by other “liberal” states.
But here’s the kicker: the court can also duck the marriage question altogether. They can simply rule that it is within the discretion of Department of Civil Servants to extend benefits and if they choose to call those benefits spousal benefits, then that is their prerogative.
It’s not a good thing for our legal battles that the court can duck the obligation to rule on the marriage issue. The argument that same-sex marriages are simply an aberration under the marriage umbrella is flawed and specious and we would be well served to have a judicial ruling on the subject. However, it is more likely that the court will choose to duck out of the hot topic issue and sit back on the discretion reasoning.
Why rock the boat if you don’t have to.
Sadly, this is one opportunity to rock the boat I wish the court would take.
The thing is Jay, marriage is not addressed in the constitution nor is it a right, but a privilege unfortunately. I have a problem though when an elected official be it the president or anyone else states that the federal government should not be involved in marriage. The fact of the matter is, and arguable, that it is involved when it confers more than one thousand rights and benefits that can only come via federally recognized marriages, prohibited to gay couples who are married. Similarly, state governments are also involved directly when they issue marriage licenses.
I wonder how straights would react if states stopped issuing licenses and the federal government ceased granting all the rights of marriage? I wonder what they would then call marriage….a privilege, a benefit? I don’t think so, they’d call it a right even though the constitution doesn’t view it as such.
My take on all of it is, get the states out of the business of marriage and let lawyers draft contracts and file them with the state declaring a couple married as soon as their signatures are appended to the contract which is what marriage is anyway, a contract, plain and simple. Imagine the reaction of the religious wackos diving into a tailspin. I’d love to see that happen.
Considering the outrageous ruling by New York’s highest court that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that homosexual issues are not subject to strict scrutiny, I’d just as soon have the bastards duck this one.