msworkerbee
Jul 8th, 2006, 06:54 PM
From HRC:
NEW YORK COURT’S ARCHAIC REASONING IGNORES THE FACTS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES
‘The court’s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today,’ said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement as the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, ruled today that the state constitution permitted the denial of marriage to same-sex couples. The court’s majority opinion ruled that the Legislature had a rational reason for denying marriage, saying it’s more important to promote stability in opposite-sex relationships than same-sex relationships and insinuating that children do not do as well with lesbian and gay parents.
“The court’s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today,” said Solmonese. “The court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness. We commend the work of Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the plaintiff couples who had the courage and resolve to bring these cases forward.”
Solmonese continued, “This case raised the issue of fairness and equality for all New Yorkers who saw first-hand the real people fighting for their families. Thanks in large part to these couples and the hard work of the Empire State Pride Agenda, now a majority of New Yorkers support marriage equality and we will work with our allies in the state to ensure that the Legislature hears their voices loud and clear. As we move forward, we will continue to work with Empire State Pride Agenda and allies in the state to engage elected officials about why all Americans deserve the protections and responsibilities that only marriage provides.
“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage,” added Solmonese. “We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails. We will continue to move forward.”
The Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye dissented and wrote, “I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.” One other judge joined the dissent.
Bolstered by all major research studies, the prevailing professional opinion is that a parent’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with his or her ability to be a good parent. The nation’s leading child welfare, psychological and children’s health organizations also have issued policy or position statements in this regard, including...
For more details, see HRC site (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=33037&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm)
From NCLR:
New York High Court Allows Discriminatory Marriage Laws to Stand California courts unlikely to follow New York"s lead, says National Center for Lesbian Rights
(San Francisco, California, July 6, 2006) New York's highest state court ruled today that excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not violate the New York Constitution. In a 4-2 decision authored by Judge Robert Smith, the Court of Appeals held that New York's marriage law is constitutional even though it deprives children with same-sex parents of equal legal protections. Judge Smith wrote, "The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Judith Kaye accused the court of retreating from its "proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers." According to Judge Kaye, "future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." Judge Kaye rejected the majority's argument that it is rational for the state to penalize same-sex parent families. "The State plainly has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children," she wrote, "but excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers this interest. In fact, it undermines it." Noting that "tens of thousands of children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in New York," Judge Kaye concluded that depriving these children of the protections of marriage "is antithetical to their welfare."
The Court's decision today was issued in four consolidated appeals: Hernandez v. Robles, Samuels v. New York State Department Health, Seymour v. Holcomb, and Kane v. Marsolais. Lambda Legal was counsel in the Hernandez case; the ACLU was counsel in the Samuels case.
On July 10, 2006, the California Court of Appeal will hear oral arguments in Woo v. California and five other cases that will decide whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution. The National Center for Lesbian Rights is lead counsel in Woo v. California. Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, will be arguing before the Court in Woo and three other cases. The July 10, 2006 argument will be held at the First Appellate District Court of Appeal in San Francisco; argument will begin at 9:00 a.m.
Unlike California and many other states, New York has taken no affirmative steps to protect lesbian or gay couples. New York has no statewide civil union or domestic partner protections. In addition, New York courts have rejected almost every claim by same-sex couples to be treated equally with regard to important issues such as the ability to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of a surviving same-sex partner. Although New York permits same-sex couples to adopt, it is one of a small minority of states that refuses to provide any statutory or judicial protections for children who are raised by same-sex parents outside of adoption. In contrast, California and most other states have held that such children of same-sex couples must be given the same protections as children of heterosexual parents, either under parentage statutes or judicially-created doctrines such as de facto parentage or psychological parentage.
For more details, see NCLR site (http://www.nclrights.org/releases/pr-marriagelaw_ny070606.htm)
NEW YORK COURT’S ARCHAIC REASONING IGNORES THE FACTS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES
‘The court’s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today,’ said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement as the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, ruled today that the state constitution permitted the denial of marriage to same-sex couples. The court’s majority opinion ruled that the Legislature had a rational reason for denying marriage, saying it’s more important to promote stability in opposite-sex relationships than same-sex relationships and insinuating that children do not do as well with lesbian and gay parents.
“The court’s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today,” said Solmonese. “The court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness. We commend the work of Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the plaintiff couples who had the courage and resolve to bring these cases forward.”
Solmonese continued, “This case raised the issue of fairness and equality for all New Yorkers who saw first-hand the real people fighting for their families. Thanks in large part to these couples and the hard work of the Empire State Pride Agenda, now a majority of New Yorkers support marriage equality and we will work with our allies in the state to ensure that the Legislature hears their voices loud and clear. As we move forward, we will continue to work with Empire State Pride Agenda and allies in the state to engage elected officials about why all Americans deserve the protections and responsibilities that only marriage provides.
“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage,” added Solmonese. “We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails. We will continue to move forward.”
The Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye dissented and wrote, “I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.” One other judge joined the dissent.
Bolstered by all major research studies, the prevailing professional opinion is that a parent’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with his or her ability to be a good parent. The nation’s leading child welfare, psychological and children’s health organizations also have issued policy or position statements in this regard, including...
For more details, see HRC site (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=33037&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm)
From NCLR:
New York High Court Allows Discriminatory Marriage Laws to Stand California courts unlikely to follow New York"s lead, says National Center for Lesbian Rights
(San Francisco, California, July 6, 2006) New York's highest state court ruled today that excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not violate the New York Constitution. In a 4-2 decision authored by Judge Robert Smith, the Court of Appeals held that New York's marriage law is constitutional even though it deprives children with same-sex parents of equal legal protections. Judge Smith wrote, "The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Judith Kaye accused the court of retreating from its "proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers." According to Judge Kaye, "future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." Judge Kaye rejected the majority's argument that it is rational for the state to penalize same-sex parent families. "The State plainly has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children," she wrote, "but excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers this interest. In fact, it undermines it." Noting that "tens of thousands of children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in New York," Judge Kaye concluded that depriving these children of the protections of marriage "is antithetical to their welfare."
The Court's decision today was issued in four consolidated appeals: Hernandez v. Robles, Samuels v. New York State Department Health, Seymour v. Holcomb, and Kane v. Marsolais. Lambda Legal was counsel in the Hernandez case; the ACLU was counsel in the Samuels case.
On July 10, 2006, the California Court of Appeal will hear oral arguments in Woo v. California and five other cases that will decide whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution. The National Center for Lesbian Rights is lead counsel in Woo v. California. Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, will be arguing before the Court in Woo and three other cases. The July 10, 2006 argument will be held at the First Appellate District Court of Appeal in San Francisco; argument will begin at 9:00 a.m.
Unlike California and many other states, New York has taken no affirmative steps to protect lesbian or gay couples. New York has no statewide civil union or domestic partner protections. In addition, New York courts have rejected almost every claim by same-sex couples to be treated equally with regard to important issues such as the ability to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of a surviving same-sex partner. Although New York permits same-sex couples to adopt, it is one of a small minority of states that refuses to provide any statutory or judicial protections for children who are raised by same-sex parents outside of adoption. In contrast, California and most other states have held that such children of same-sex couples must be given the same protections as children of heterosexual parents, either under parentage statutes or judicially-created doctrines such as de facto parentage or psychological parentage.
For more details, see NCLR site (http://www.nclrights.org/releases/pr-marriagelaw_ny070606.htm)