Jeff at the Tin Man takes a closer look at New York’s Court of Appeals decision to uphold the gay marriage ban:
"Bizarrely, the opinion of the court puts the cart before the horse. Normally, a court first explains what type of analysis is appropriate, and then analyzes the case. Here, the court first analyzed the case and then explained why the level of analysis was appropriate. The court gave the legislature’s limitation on marriage the lowest, most deferential level of scrutiny possible, and only afterwards did it explain why this was appropriate.
"The court stated that the legislature could reasonably conclude that ‘for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships because heterosexual sex can naturally lead to the creation of children while homosexual sex cannot. The court also stated that ‘The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.’ The court cited ‘intuition and experience’ as supporting this argument.
"The court concludes with a hope that ‘the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result — as many undoubtedly will be — will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made.’
"That last sentence rankles me. Minority rights should not be decided democratically. Then again, the majority of the court apparently doesn’t see this as a minority rights issue."
Jeff includes the contact information for Joseph Bruno, New York’s Republican Senate majority leader, so you can call and tell him yourself that you support a same-sex marriage bill.
