Another NY Court Upholds Traditional Marriage
by Bill Fancher
December 13, 2004
(AgapePress) - A second New York court has ruled that the state's definition of marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman is, indeed, constitutional.
Last week Albany County Justice Joseph Teresi rejected arguments by 13 same-sex couples in the case of Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, claiming that the state's definition of marriage violated constitutional guarantees of free speech, equal protection, and due process. Mat Staver is president of Liberty Counsel, which filed a brief in the case urging the court to uphold the state's marriage laws.
Staver is encouraged by Teresi's ruling, but he points out that the matter is by no means settled. "This is not the end of the road," he says, adding that the case will "certainly go up the appeals channel, and we'll file briefs there as well." The good news, the attorney explains, is that the Albany County court is now the second court to rule on the marriage protection issue in New York, a state that "is not necessarily known for conservative courts; and that state has now twice, in two different venues, upheld the marriage laws."
Two months ago, a Rockland County Supreme Court Justice upheld the constitutionality of New York's marriage laws. Liberty Counsel's head points out that in that case, as in last week's hearing, the State of New York showed that it has an obvious interest in preserving traditional marriage.
In Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, the court rejected the discrimination argument presented by the group of pro-homosexual disputants, which included State Representative Daniel J. O' Donnell, brother of lesbian comedian Rosie O'Donnell. In that case, Judge Teresi found no merit in the pro-homosexual couples' claims that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violates their right to free expression. In fact, the judge ruled that New York's marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender because men and women are treated alike under those laws, each being free to marry someone of the other gender.
Staver says the Liberty Counsel's brief in the case argued that, like any other state, New York "has many legitimate reasons for pursuing and preserving marriage as one man and one woman over any other kind of human relationship." The Albany County judge agreed, the attorney says, and made it clear in the ruling "that there is no unconstitutional discrimination under the state constitution, and that the marriage laws that preserve marriage as one man and one woman are indeed constitutional."
At the present time, Staver says Liberty Counsel is directly involved in defending marriage in more than 30 cases throughout the United States. He asserts that traditional marriage, defined as being between one man and one woman, is simply "common sense," and states clearly have the right, under the law, to "prefer the best family arrangement" for children and society.
