The New York Court of Appeals stated last week that it upheld a gay marriage ban because gay couples make more stable parental units than heterosexual couples—and thus the latter need the benefits of marriage to assist them. The reasoning behind this is wild, but it’s also insidious. Check it out.
LAST week, New York?s highest court voted 4-to-2 that a legislative ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the state Constitution. In doing so, it added to the patchwork of state rulings on the issue, including those of Indiana and Arizona (which similarly upheld legislative bans) and Massachusetts (which struck down a legislative ban).
What?s noteworthy about the New York decision, however, is that it became the second ruling by a state high court to assert a startling rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage ? that straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them.
The critical question, expressed in a plurality opinion by three members of the New York court, is whether a ?rational legislature? could decide that the benefits of marriage should be granted to opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples. The opinion then answered in the affirmative with two different arguments. While both related to the interests of children, they differed significantly in vintage and tone.