From the New York Supreme Court...
From the New York Supreme Court's decision regarding the constitutionality of new York's "Domestic Relations Law," which denies the rights of same-sex couples to a civil marriage:
Marriage provides an extensive legal structure that honors and
protects a couple's relationship, helps support the family and its
children through an unparalleled array of rights and responsibilities,
and privileges a married couple as a single financial and legal unit.
As discussed previously, notwithstanding that New York City same-sex
couples may register as “domestic partners”, such benefits are
relatively minimal compared to civil marriage. Plaintiffs' inability to
marry excludes them from the vast range of statutory protections,
benefits, and mutual responsibilities automatically afforded to married
couples by New York law and is unconstitutional for the foregoing
reasons.
As a society, we recognize that the decision of whether and whom
to marry is life-transforming. It is a unique expression of a private
bond and profound love between a couple, and a life dream shared by
many in our culture. It is also society's most significant public
proclamation of commitment to another person for life. With marriage
comes not only legal and financial benefits, but also the supportive
community of family and friends who witness and celebrate a couple's
devotion to one another, at the time of their wedding, and through the
anniversaries that follow. Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as
the utmost expression of a couple’s commitment and love. Plaintiffs
may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage.
Rote reliance on historical exclusion as a justification
improperly forecloses constitutional analysis and would have served to
justify slavery, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. There has
been a steady evolution of the institution of marriage throughout
history which belies the concept of a static traditional definition.
Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two
loving equals who choose to commit themselves to each other and a State
institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their
children. The relationships of plaintiffs fit within this definition
of marriage.
Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to
the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit
to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The
recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex
couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone.
While, undeniably, religious institutions have a historical and
spiritual interest in marriage and the recognition of those married
under their tenets, ultimately it is the government’s choice as to
which relationships to recognize as valid civil marriages and whether,
and the degree to which, legal protections, burdens and privileges
should be conferred on that civil institution. The Court recognizes
that this decision may cause pain to some in that their religious
convictions forbid the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, the
Court emphasizes that government recognition that same-sex couples may
be civilly married does not impact on those married under the tenets of
their individual faith, and does not require that religious
institutions change their tenets, nor their definition of marriage
under their faith. Moreover, such religious considerations cannot
legally be the basis upon which to curtail the constitutional rights of
plaintiffs....
ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates
Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is
further
ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the words "husband”, "wife", "groom"
and "bride", as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic
Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse", and all
personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the
Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to
either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a
marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two
persons in that couple are of the same sex;...
Marriage provides an extensive legal structure that honors and
protects a couple's relationship, helps support the family and its
children through an unparalleled array of rights and responsibilities,
and privileges a married couple as a single financial and legal unit.
As discussed previously, notwithstanding that New York City same-sex
couples may register as “domestic partners”, such benefits are
relatively minimal compared to civil marriage. Plaintiffs' inability to
marry excludes them from the vast range of statutory protections,
benefits, and mutual responsibilities automatically afforded to married
couples by New York law and is unconstitutional for the foregoing
reasons.
As a society, we recognize that the decision of whether and whom
to marry is life-transforming. It is a unique expression of a private
bond and profound love between a couple, and a life dream shared by
many in our culture. It is also society's most significant public
proclamation of commitment to another person for life. With marriage
comes not only legal and financial benefits, but also the supportive
community of family and friends who witness and celebrate a couple's
devotion to one another, at the time of their wedding, and through the
anniversaries that follow. Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as
the utmost expression of a couple’s commitment and love. Plaintiffs
may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage.
Rote reliance on historical exclusion as a justification
improperly forecloses constitutional analysis and would have served to
justify slavery, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. There has
been a steady evolution of the institution of marriage throughout
history which belies the concept of a static traditional definition.
Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two
loving equals who choose to commit themselves to each other and a State
institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their
children. The relationships of plaintiffs fit within this definition
of marriage.
Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to
the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit
to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The
recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex
couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone.
While, undeniably, religious institutions have a historical and
spiritual interest in marriage and the recognition of those married
under their tenets, ultimately it is the government’s choice as to
which relationships to recognize as valid civil marriages and whether,
and the degree to which, legal protections, burdens and privileges
should be conferred on that civil institution. The Court recognizes
that this decision may cause pain to some in that their religious
convictions forbid the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, the
Court emphasizes that government recognition that same-sex couples may
be civilly married does not impact on those married under the tenets of
their individual faith, and does not require that religious
institutions change their tenets, nor their definition of marriage
under their faith. Moreover, such religious considerations cannot
legally be the basis upon which to curtail the constitutional rights of
plaintiffs....
ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates
Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is
further
ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the words "husband”, "wife", "groom"
and "bride", as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic
Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse", and all
personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the
Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to
either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a
marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two
persons in that couple are of the same sex;...