New York to Appeal Gay Marriage Ruling
Saddling on both sides of the controversial issue, the mayor of New York City said he personally favors gay marriage, but will appeal Friday’s controversial New York State court ruling against a ban on such unions.
Saddling on both sides of the controversial issue, the mayor of New York City said he personally favors gay “marriage” but will appeal Friday’s controversial New York State court ruling against a ban on such unions.
In an afternoon event on Saturday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg told reporters the city will try “to expedite the appeal directly to the highest court so that people will have a right once and for all to know where they stand,” according to the New York Times.
The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, will have the authority to validate the ruling by Judge Ling-Cohan, who wrote that “same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with a person of their choosing”, or to side with three other state justices who in recent months found that there is no “right” to gay marriage in New York.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
According to the New York Times, Bloomberg said he personally favored gay marriage and furthermore said he will work to change the law against such unions, during a dinner held by one of the largest gay activist groups in the nation.
He promised the Human Rights Campaign that he “will work with you to change the law" in Albany if the lower court ruling - which he called "something to celebrate" - was struck down.
"I think people have the right to love, to live with and to marry whoever they want, regardless of their sexual orientation," the mayor said to the hundreds in attendance.
However, Bloomberg also said the city will appeal Ling-Cohan’s ruling against the state’s Domestic Relations Law, but only because city lawyers had told him the ruling “was incorrect, that the current state Constitution does not permit same-sex marriages."
Lawyers for the city presented the same argument before Justice Ling-Cohan when they lost their case.
According to the Liberty Counsel, whose attorneys represented a slew of political conservatives in filing an amicus brief in the New York City case, neither the city nor the state attorneys were dedicated to aggressively defending the marriage law.
“Liberty Counsel initially sought to intervene to obtain full party status to defend this case by arguing that neither the city nor the state attorneys were dedicated to aggressively defend this case,” a statement by the LC read.
While they were not granted the right to intervene, they were allowed to file an amicus brief, and plans to file an amicus brief on appeal.
The decision on gay “marriage” will likely be among the most controversial case handled by the Court of Appeals in many years because its implications will stretch much further than the New York City border.
According to the NY Times, “if the court was to allow gay marriage, opponents would most likely seek a change in state law or a constitutional amendment barring such unions. It could also spur efforts in state courts around the country by gay-marriage proponents who have been pressing for rulings similar to that of the highest court in Massachusetts allowing gay marriage.”
Erik Stanley, chief counsel of Liberty Counsel, explained however that the prospects for winning at the appellate courts are high.
"I think the prospects [of winning] are fairly good," said Stanley on February 7. "If anything you can say the New York judges are trending toward denying same-sex marriage, and the chances that the courts will uphold traditional marriage are pretty high."
However, before the case gets carried onto the appellate court, Stanley explained that New York City may become the San Francisco of the East Coast.
"This particular judge has stayed her decision for 30 days, but the appellate court will have to decide whether they want to stay her decision," said Stanley.
"One of the worst things that could happen is having same-sex couples marry in one part of New York while other parts of the state prohibit it," he explained. "At that point, you’ll end up with having news of same-sex couples marrying all over New York City every night – and I don’t think this is a picture we would like to see."
Nonetheless, Stanley said he believes the appellate court will likely "place a halt" in the decision, "at least until the case appears before the High Court."
Ultimately, Stanley said a federal marriage amendment would be the only permanent solution to such cases.
"This is precisely one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard for the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment," said Stanley. "Here you have on judge in New York that has thrown all the state laws on marriage into upheaval.
"We don’t want to have to wake up to the daily news to learn each day about what is happening to our marriage laws in the nation, and we believe this issue must be decided by the people once and for all."
