A Stitch in Haste

Here is the relevant part of the decision:

We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
...
The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.
...
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.

Bottom line, straights can't be trusted, and gays don't need to be trusted. We need to bribe straights into getting married precisely because they might not want to, and we need not afford gays the opportunity to marry, precisely because they do want to.

This is what passes as informed jurisprudence in New York State.

The fact that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, because "it's all about the children," is both underinclusive (we don't limit straight marriage to fertile couples, we don't compel straight couples to bear children, nor do we summarily dissolve straight marriages that do not result in children) and overinclusive (gays have children too, just not by accident), means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

This is what passes as informed jurisprudence in New York State.

Now that the bromide of "it's all about the children" has been refuted at every turn, defenders of traditional bigotry now have a new twist: "it's all about accidental children."

This is what passes as informed jurisprudence in New York State.

Note: The vote was 4-2. Chief Judge Kaye has a lengthy dissent that I look forward to reading.

I may or may not have more later.

The lead case is Hernandez v. Robles, No. 86 (NYS Court of Appeals, July 6, 2006)