Gays v. New York
See, it's not so much that a New York State appeals court yesterday overturned a Manhattan judge's February ruling that would have allowed gays to marry. (That was, alas, to be expected.) It's more the language that was used in upholding the status quo. No "we're sympathetic but the court overstepped its bounds"; no "it's fundamentally unfair but a matter that must be left to the legislature." Oh, no. Instead it was grafs like:
The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing."
Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision.
Because of course gay marriage would be detrimental to "the well-being of children and society." Even here in good ol' blue-state New York.
