N.Y. Court: Gays Too Good as Parents to Marry
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. Update: Nebraska just reinstated its gay marriage ban.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.
WAIT BEFORE YOU GO...N.Y. Times, Op-Ed:
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.
This year, the ground feels uncertain — facts are buried and those in power are working to keep them hidden. Now more than ever, independent journalism must go beneath the surface.
At Truthdig, we don’t just report what's happening — we investigate how and why. We follow the threads others leave behind and uncover the forces shaping our future.
Your tax-deductible donation fuels journalism that asks harder questions and digs where others won’t.
Don’t settle for surface-level coverage.
Unearth what matters. Help dig deeper.
Donate now.
Ear to the Ground
The Wikileaks founder may be near the end of his long battle to avoid U.S. extradition.
In a case likely to affect others, the corporate giant is told to pay $572 million after state says it misstated drug's effects out of greed.
At issue is money approved by Congress for the Pentagon that was diverted during the national emergency. Two high-priority projects are halted.
A tale of justice delayed and denied, Bobby Joe Maxwell's case exposes a fatal flaw in our court system.
Matthew Charles, although he committed no new crime, is back behind bars, and his case is generating a widespread demand for his release.
Despite the rejection, lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder say they are encouraged by the judges' 4-1 split, which may indicate that the court will change its decision.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.