New York Times February 4, 2005
Judge Rejects New York Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
and MARK J. PRENDERGAST
In a victory for same-sex marriage advocates, a New York state judge in Manhattan ruled today that denying gay couples licenses to marry violates the State Constitution, and she ordered the city to begin issuing licenses in March unless a higher court intervened.
In a 62-page decision, the first in New York State to affirm the rights of gays to marry, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court wrote that New York State's Domestic Relations Law, which dates to the 19th century, is unconstitutional. The law, she wrote, violates gay couples' due process and their rights to equal protection under the law.
She ordered the city clerk's office to begin issuing licenses in 30 days after receiving a copy of her decision, unless the city appeals and obtains a longer stay. The city Law Department said it was reviewing her decision. Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling applies to couples in New York City, although a favorable appellate ruling could broaden its application.
"Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love," Justice Ling-Cohan wrote. "Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."
The suit was filed last year by Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, on behalf of five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York, and advocates of gay rights quickly applauded the judge's ruling.
"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, Susan Sommer, who presented the case, told The Associated Press. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."
In her ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan 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."
The judge likened laws barring same-sex marriages to laws barring mixed-race marriages that endured in some parts of the United States well into the 1960's.
"An instructive lesson can be learned from the history of the anti-miscegenation laws and the court decisions which struck them down as unconstitutional," Justice Ling-Cohan wrote. "The challenges to laws banning whites and nonwhites from marriage demonstrate that the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners."
That seemed to be a reference to one strategy being employed by opponents of same-sex marriage: the passage by individual states of legislation defining marriage as between people of opposite sexes, citing tradition and "natural law."
New York State does not have one of these so-called Defense of Marriage Acts. Some opponents of same-sex marriage are also pressing to amend the United States Constitution to bar same-sex marriages.
Last year, the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, issued an opinion stating that while state law would allow New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states, it did not permit such marriages to be carried out in New York. But he also acknowledged that the state's marriage laws raised "serious legal concerns" that must be resolved by the courts.
Justice Ling-Cohan directed that a copy of her ruling be sent to Mr. Spitzer's office.
The matter will almost certainly be decided by the higher courts in New York, if for no other reason than another state judge recently issued a ruling opposite that of Justice Ling-Cohan's. In December, Justice Joseph C. Teresi of State Supreme Court in Albany ruled that 13 same-sex couples in a lawsuit filed in his court had not been denied their rights to equal protection under the laws, due process or freedom of speech by being thwarted in their attempts to marry in New York State.
A spokesman for Gov. George Pataki, Kevin Quinn, said after learning of Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling, "The governor strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong," according to The AP, adding that "New York's marriage laws are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman."
>>A spokesman for Gov. George Pataki, Kevin Quinn, said after learning of Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling, "The governor strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong," according to The AP, adding that "New York's marriage laws are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman." <<
Applause for Gov. Pataki!
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
It's been quite a week in the chamber!! The Press Office has been put to the test, deflecting Dicker's attacks on Libby and now .... this.