7-07-06, 9:39 am

In a 4-2 decision yesterday (July 6), the New York Court of Appeals ruled to uphold that state's ban on gay marriage. The decision was quickly met with sharp criticism by civil rights organizations and public advocacy groups.

Describing the legal arguments of the majority of the court as 'archaic,' Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization that promotes equality for lesbian and gay people, said, 'The court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness.'

Solmonese predicted that ultimately fairness would win in the end. 'We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy,' he noted, 'but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails.'

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, described the decision as 'tortured and intellectually strained' and as 'an egregious departure from the New York Court of Appeal’s long and proud tradition of advancing liberty and dismantling discrimination.'

In a press statement, Pride at Work, an affiliated constituency group of the AFL-CIO that promotes mutual support between organized labor and the lesbian and gay community, expressed disappointment at the ruling. 'The highest court in the state,' the statement read, 'rejected a bid for full equality for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, under the marriage law.'

Joe Fox, President, Capital District Area Labor Federation, which represents working people in Albany where the decision was made, said, 'We support the right of same-sex couples to access the rights, responsibilities and legal commitment of civil marriage. We are looking to the State Legislature to resolve this issue.' He promised to urge his union to lend its support to the issue.

In its public statement, the National Organization of Women said, 'This decision is an unacceptable endorsement of intolerance.' It added that all people have the right to love and commit to whomever they want. NOW urged the New York state legislature to establish marriage equality.

In a public statement, the ACLU, which helped argue the case in New York, noted that in reaching its decision, the court had to come to two erroneous conclusions. One, that 'straight couples need the stability provided by marriage, but gay couples do not.' Two, the court ignored overwhelming scientific evidence that 'same-sex couples are as capable of being good parents as straight people and their children are equally well adjusted. '

Accusing the majority of the court of basing its opinion on 'tired assumptions,' Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way, said the decision allows 'the state of New York to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.' Neas predicted the state legislature would ultimately decide in overturning discriminatory legislation.

In writing the dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Judith Kaye argued, 'Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.'



--Joel Wendland can be reached at