A Stitch in Haste

The New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) has announced that it will not grant expedited review of the cases concerning same-sex marriage, including the NYC victory in Hernandez v. Robles. The cases will have to first go through the intermediate appellate courts before reaching the highest court.

My hasty-stitchy take is that this is, if anything, a postive for two reasons:

1. The couples in Robles are represented by Lambda Legal, the heroes who brought you Lawrence v. Texas. They have very deep pockets and very wide staff rolls. To the extent that this becomes a battle of attrition, that can only work in favor of the gay couples.


2. A possible reason for declining to grant expedited review is to allow for more “stuff” (i.e., briefs and rulings) for the Court of Appeals to digest. Since, generally, opponents of same-sex marriage rely on simplistic arguments (e.g., “it’s about tradition”) rather than sophisticated ones (e.g., “it’s about due process”), I would think that, when the issue finally does reach the Court of Appeals, “more is better.”

Or this could all mean absolutely nothing.

In related news, the San Francisco judge who declared California’s DOMA unconstitutional stayed his own ruling to allow the appeals process to proceed unhastened. How “activist” of him.

Also, a Connecticut judge makes an important but unsurprising decision: Since Massachusetts same-sex marriages are not recognized in Connecticut, it follows logically that Connecticut cannot annul them, and the parties must go back to Massachusetts to adjudicate. I say the ruling is important because it is an early example of “DOMA versus Full Faith and Credit.” In this case, the two yield the same result and there is nothing exciting. But the two won’t always agree, and somewhere down the road there will be a fact pattern where DOMA and FFC collide head-on. And anyone who claims the outcome will be a no-brainer is either a liar or a fool.

And the band plays on...