Why Can't Gays Marry in New York? Because We Make Horrible Parents

Story: New York Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Marriage



'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal.' * 
-- Declaration of Independence

*New York Supreme Court: Unless you're gay or lesbian

It's the week of July Fourth, and Americans across this great land of ours have paused to celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the document that eloquently and defiantly proclaims belief in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That sentiment and this week's patriotic celebrations strike me as more than a little ironic. Why? Because New York’s highest court today voted 4-2 to deny equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

What is shocking is the blatant homophobia and incredibly tired arguments in the written decision. (Read a PDF of the decision here.) It truly blows my mind that the court would have the guts, not to mention ignorance (malice?) to deny same-sex marriage based on their contention that kids need a mommy and a daddy. But that's what they did.

After citing a few of the "316 benefits" of marriage that straight people get to enjoy -- including "significant tax advantages," "rights to be treated as family members" for insurance benefits and health care decisions, and get this: "the symbolic benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing their relationships recognized by the State" -- the court goes on to put gay people in our place:

... We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of the children, is it more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse ...

There is a second reason: The Legislature could believe that is it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

Did you get all that? The court doesn't want gays to marry because kids need a mommy and a daddy. It doesn't want gays to marry because straight people have sex/children the way God intended (?!): They're driven by "accident or impulse." First of all, that's incredibly insulting to straight people, and second, it makes no sense. The very fact that gay people have to work so hard to adopt or find alternate ways of giving birth should be evidence enough that, for those gay men and lesbians who choose to have children, they really want them. There's nothing accidental about our families. And there is no factual basis for their argument that kids of gay parents are any less well-adjusted or taken care of than those of hetero parents.

Don't even get me started about the straight divorce rate, the number of single-parent households, the incredibly high and outrageously under-prosecuted number of deadbeat straight dads who ignore their kids and underpay or never pay child support. Are these the families children of every hetero-headed household benefit so much from? "Having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what a man and a woman are like." Sorry to burst your bubble, Judges, but if that's what you think America looks like, you're dreaming.

But why are we even having this discussion? Gay marriage is about the union of two people -- in and of itself. Why should child welfare be the central argument of the Court's decision -- especially when gay people become parents every single day, despite the fact that our relationships aren't recognized by the state?

This battle should be about equality. Nothing else. If the justices had any of the moral sense that they so self-righteously tried to express in this case, they would have decided that discrimination is wrong.

At least Chief Judge Judith Kaye stood up for the real meaning of the Declaration of Independence in her dissent: "Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them."

More:
Two Top Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage (Washington Post, Free Registration Required)

Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

Tags: Gay Marriage, New York