Pro-Family Leaders Praise Ga., NY Courts' Pro-Marriage Rulings
by Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
July 7, 2006
(AgapePress) - - Pro-family groups are celebrating two court rulings on Thursday in New York and Georgia that turned aside bids by homosexuals to legalize same-sex "marriage." While the Georgia Supreme Court's decision to uphold a referendum result banning homosexual marriage surprised few, many conservatives were both surprised and particularly pleased by the strong, pro-family wording of the New York court's ruling.
In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state constitution guarantees no right to homosexual marriage, declaring that the New York constitution "does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex" and that the question of whether such marriages should be recognized is an issue to be addressed by the Legislature. (See earlier story)
The New York Court of Appeals also stated that at least two grounds rationally support limiting marriage to one man and one woman, both of those grounds being "derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children." On the one hand, the court observed, marriage can be an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, child-bearing relationships; and secondly, "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father."
NY Court's Pro-Family Decision Aces 'Rational Basis' Test
Jan LaRue of Concerned Women for America (CWA) was delighted when she heard the news of the New York court's ruling and praised the majority judges. "The court applied the lowest level of judicial review, which is the rational basis test," LaRue says, "and the court gave two examples of what the legislature could rely on to limit marriage to a man and a woman."
The New York Court's statements demonstrated the majority judges' understanding that marriage "promotes stability in opposite-sex relationships, which naturally tend to cause the birth of children," the CWA spokeswoman says. Meanwhile, she adds, the court's ruling also recognized the need "to avoid instability in same-sex relationships, which tend to be casual and temporary."
LaRue feels the court's statement of its reasoning was important, in that it affirmed that traditional marriage is what is best for children. She and other traditional marriage advocates are now hoping the court's 4-2 ruling will have an impact on other U.S. courts wrestling with the same issue.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue also applauds the New York appeals court ruling, one he says will be welcomed by those who believe in the institution of marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. America overwhelmingly supports traditional marriage, he observes, pointing to the fact that all 11 states that had the question of "gay marriage" on their ballots on the day of the last presidential election voted it down.
On the other hand, Donohue asserts, "those who prefer a judicial system where judges impose their ideological predilections on the public will not be happy," and neither will homosexual marriage proponents. "But someone had to lose, and it is only just that the sexual engineers lost," he says.
Applause for the Ruling's Wisdom and the Court's Restraint
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is among those criticizing the New York court for its pro-marriage ruling, which Dean says rested on "outdated and bigoted notions." However, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins disagrees. He says the majority judges on the New York Court of Appeals remembered, commendably, that their job is to interpret the law, not make it, and their decision was based, as it ought to have been, on existing law.
For that reason, Perkins describes the judges' actions in this case as the very "definition of judicial restraint." He says the majority judges' opinion, as stated and explicated by Judge Robert Smith, reveals this to be "a textbook case of judges applying the law and deferring to the legislature in the making of any new law."
What the New York court and the Georgia court have done in issuing these two pro-marriage rulings, Perkins adds, is to affirm the voters' judgment, the will of the people, in upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "These developments are critical," he says.
Focus on the Family Action chairman Dr. James Dobson agrees. Both the Georgia and the New York rulings represent "a significant victory for American families," he asserts, "and, I hope, signal an awareness by the judicial branch that the people don't want courts acting as superlegislatures." In each case, Dobson notes, the court affirmed existing state policy that was "passed the way laws and constitutional amendments are supposed to be passed -- by elected officials or the people themselves."
The Focus on the Family Action spokesman says Americans are fed up with activist judges "re-engineering the social structure of their states and the nation" and the July 6 court decisions "seem to suggest that courts are beginning to acknowledge this reality." Traditional marriage supporters can only hope, he adds, "that judges in other states where marriage protection laws and amendments have been challenged have gotten the message, too."
The New York Court of Appeals' decision is particularly gratifying, Dobson observes, since justices recognized the number-one threat that same-sex marriage poses to society -- the effect on children of being intentionally denied a mother or a father. That threat is the reason why traditional marriage defenders have fought so hard to pass a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, he says, and why they will continue to do so.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, echoes that concern. Although he says while the victories in New York and Georgia are victories for marriage and the nation, "there are several states where marriage, as it is traditionally known and biblically based, is at risk." For that reason, he contends, "it is critical that we have a constitutional amendment that specifically says that nothing in the U.S. Constitution or any of the state constitutions shall be construed as requiring that marriage be anything other than the union of a man and a woman."
Meanwhile, Land regards the New York Court of Appeals and Georgia Supreme Court rulings as reaffirmations of government "of the people, by the people, for the people." He says these pro-marriage decisions should encourage all Americans that their judiciary is not beyond repair.
