(no subject)
Back in July, when the NYS Court of Appeals rejected the claim that homosexuals were entitled to equal treatment under the state constitution, I didn't say much about it here. It was a hectic time of year for us personally, and quite frankly I was kind of blindsided by the decision. Not by the denial, but by the specific reasons given by the court for the denial.
Basically, the 4-2 majority opinion is that heterosexual marriage is provided by the state so that when heterosexuals have casual sex resulting in accidental offspring, there is an ability for those two people to marry and thereby protect the resulting children. Since homosexuals can't accidentally have children, there is no corresponding right to marry there.
...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 also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. 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.
Point of fact - In NY State, we protect and assert the right of same-sex couples to be foster parents, to adopt children, to have equal access to artificial insemination. So, NY State has made sure that there are a multitude of ways for same-sex couples to build a family and raise children together. But, based on this decision, apparently those children don't need the stability that marriage offers. Marriage is only necessary for the children who are the result of "accident or impulse."
----------------------------
Further, to reject the case on the basis of prejudice and separate the struggle for equal rights from the landmark Loving v Virginia interracial marriage decision, the court maintained that while racism against black people has existed for centuries, the recognition of discrimination against homosexuals has been a relatively recent development.
Racism has been recognized for centuries -- at first by a few people, and later by many more -- as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950's and 1960's, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began.
It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.
The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
Prior to the movement culminating in Loving v Virginia, it was an accepted truth that there could only be marriages between participants of the same race. The NYS Court of Appeals does not make it clear in their decision just exactly how long a group must suffer from discrimination before it qualifies for protection. Further, apparently the discrimination must first be "widely recognized" as such before that clock can even begin ticking.
----------------------------
Marriage equality is not about giving special rights to homosexuals. Heterosexuals and homosexuals live their lives in exactly the same way. We are born, go to school, make friends, hold jobs, buy houses, cars and TV sets, pay taxes, go to ball games, grocery shop, pay bills, date, and hope to be lucky enough to fall in love and choose to spend the rest of our days with that person.
If you're heterosexual, the end result is that you get married. Once married, you and your spouse are treated as one entity. You pay taxes on your joint income, you are both entitled to the house you live in, you are automatically signed up for social security, medicare and pension benefits. You are the presumed legal parents of any children born to you during your marriage. You and your spouse can vouch for each other, speak for each other in financial and personal matters. You can sue for wrongful death if your spouse meets a tragic end, and you have the right to decide how and where your spouses' remains will be cared for after death.
If you're homosexual, the end result is...nothing. Once you reach the level of commitment where you would get married, you now go see a lawyer. This lawyer, attempts to draw up documents that approximate as many protections as legally possible - providing you can afford to pay him. He cannot get you social security benefits, he cannot get your spouse to be covered pre-tax on your health insurance. He cannot exempt you from estate taxes, he cannot give you the right to your spouse' pension. He cannot get the local health club to issue you a family membership, or get your auto insurance company to give you a family rate.
If you're heterosexual, marriage has many other intangible benefits. Studies have shown that people who are married live longer. They have less stress-related illnesses than single people. They have a higher standard of living than single people. They are more likely to purchase homes and participate in their communities.
If you're homosexual, the lack of access to marriage has the opposite effect. The stressful nature of being unable to adequately protect your family from financial and personal disasters takes a toll on one's health. The mountains of paperwork, red-tape, and costs associated with home purchases, financial planning, insurance benefits, etc. act as a deterrent. The result is less stability for the family in general.
Election Day is less than a week away. Engage yourself in the debate. Talk to your family, your friends, your neighbors. Talk about the facts, quell the fears. Encourage them to vote their conscience, and then go vote yours.
Please.
Basically, the 4-2 majority opinion is that heterosexual marriage is provided by the state so that when heterosexuals have casual sex resulting in accidental offspring, there is an ability for those two people to marry and thereby protect the resulting children. Since homosexuals can't accidentally have children, there is no corresponding right to marry there.
...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 also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. 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.
Point of fact - In NY State, we protect and assert the right of same-sex couples to be foster parents, to adopt children, to have equal access to artificial insemination. So, NY State has made sure that there are a multitude of ways for same-sex couples to build a family and raise children together. But, based on this decision, apparently those children don't need the stability that marriage offers. Marriage is only necessary for the children who are the result of "accident or impulse."
----------------------------
Further, to reject the case on the basis of prejudice and separate the struggle for equal rights from the landmark Loving v Virginia interracial marriage decision, the court maintained that while racism against black people has existed for centuries, the recognition of discrimination against homosexuals has been a relatively recent development.
Racism has been recognized for centuries -- at first by a few people, and later by many more -- as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950's and 1960's, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began.
It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.
The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
Prior to the movement culminating in Loving v Virginia, it was an accepted truth that there could only be marriages between participants of the same race. The NYS Court of Appeals does not make it clear in their decision just exactly how long a group must suffer from discrimination before it qualifies for protection. Further, apparently the discrimination must first be "widely recognized" as such before that clock can even begin ticking.
----------------------------
Marriage equality is not about giving special rights to homosexuals. Heterosexuals and homosexuals live their lives in exactly the same way. We are born, go to school, make friends, hold jobs, buy houses, cars and TV sets, pay taxes, go to ball games, grocery shop, pay bills, date, and hope to be lucky enough to fall in love and choose to spend the rest of our days with that person.
If you're heterosexual, the end result is that you get married. Once married, you and your spouse are treated as one entity. You pay taxes on your joint income, you are both entitled to the house you live in, you are automatically signed up for social security, medicare and pension benefits. You are the presumed legal parents of any children born to you during your marriage. You and your spouse can vouch for each other, speak for each other in financial and personal matters. You can sue for wrongful death if your spouse meets a tragic end, and you have the right to decide how and where your spouses' remains will be cared for after death.
If you're homosexual, the end result is...nothing. Once you reach the level of commitment where you would get married, you now go see a lawyer. This lawyer, attempts to draw up documents that approximate as many protections as legally possible - providing you can afford to pay him. He cannot get you social security benefits, he cannot get your spouse to be covered pre-tax on your health insurance. He cannot exempt you from estate taxes, he cannot give you the right to your spouse' pension. He cannot get the local health club to issue you a family membership, or get your auto insurance company to give you a family rate.
If you're heterosexual, marriage has many other intangible benefits. Studies have shown that people who are married live longer. They have less stress-related illnesses than single people. They have a higher standard of living than single people. They are more likely to purchase homes and participate in their communities.
If you're homosexual, the lack of access to marriage has the opposite effect. The stressful nature of being unable to adequately protect your family from financial and personal disasters takes a toll on one's health. The mountains of paperwork, red-tape, and costs associated with home purchases, financial planning, insurance benefits, etc. act as a deterrent. The result is less stability for the family in general.
Election Day is less than a week away. Engage yourself in the debate. Talk to your family, your friends, your neighbors. Talk about the facts, quell the fears. Encourage them to vote their conscience, and then go vote yours.
Please.