New York, Georgia High Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage

Two rulings less than two hours apart on Thursday dealt a blow to gay-rights advocates across the country. In Georgia, 75% of the state’s voters approved a ban on gay marriage in 2004. Gay and lesbian couples sued, saying that the state had violated the single-subject rule for ballot voting and that the language used was misleading because it asked voters to decide on same-sex marriage and civil unions, which they said are two different issues. The suit reached its conclusion on Thursday when the high court reinstated the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state of Georgia.

Activists in New England had hoped to broaden marriage rights for gay and lesbians beyond Massachusetts with a similar suit in New York, but the state’s Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 Thursday that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman is constitutional, and will stand. Gay rights groups had hoped for their cause to be significantly advanced by a major court win in the heavily populated state of New York, so the ruling struck down those hopes.

Since a Massachusetts court ruling in 2003 allowing gay marriage, the issue has been traveling through lower court systems in a number of states. High courts in Washington and New Jersey are currently deliberating cases. Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage via constitutional amendments or legal statutes. Vermont and Connecticut are the only states to allow same-sex civil unions, which give gay partners the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Activists from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other advocacy groups had gathered together in New York to fight the state for gay marriage rights, with 44 couples acting as plaintiffs. But the New York court said that any change in the state’s law should come from the state Legislature. Judge Robert Smith wrote in his decision that lawmakers have a legitimate interested in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. The ruling continued by saying that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right," since same-sex marriages are not "deploy rooted in the nation’s history and tradition."

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has stated in the past that he favors legalizing gay marriage and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that he would campaign himself to change the laws. But outgoing Gov. George Pataki contended that state law prohibits issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The controversial issue has been hotly debated and the court’s decision was anxiously awaited by people on both sides. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, said that despite the court’s ruling today the fight will continue. "This is something that is going to work itself out over the next 10 or 15 years, ultimately through the U.S. Supreme Court or an act of Congress," he said.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, said that he and his group would immediately launch a campaign to press the legislature to pass a gay marriage bill next year. "New York is looked at as a place where marriage equality is possible and inevitable," he said. "This ruling doesn't change that. Those in the Legislature who have said they are our friends, it's now time for them to step up. We're going to hold their feet to the fire and hold them accountable."

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group, told reporters that gay rights activists were obviously anticipating a win in New York. "It would have been a major victory for them," Staver said. "Instead it's a stunning defeat for the same-sex marriage movement." Ohio State University law professor Marc Spindelman, who tracks lesbian and gay legal issues, agreed. "Clearly, in bringing the case and pushing it as hard as they did, it's pretty good evidence that they thought they had a substantial chance of victory," said Spindelman. "It's hard to read the decision as anything other than a rebuff of gay and lesbian couples."