NEW YORK (ABP) — A state judge has ordered New York City officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on an equal basis with heterosexual couples.
On Feb. 4, New York Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said a law the state attorney general has interpreted as prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the state's constitution.
“Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing,” Ling-Cohan wrote in her 62-page opinion. “The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone.”
The judge ordered the city clerk in New York to stop his office's practice of denying marriage licenses to gay couples. She also said gender-specific language in the state's Domestic Relations Law, which officials had interpreted to ban gay couples from marrying each other, should be read as gender-neutral.
However, Ling-Cohan delayed implementation of her ruling for 30 days in case city officials choose to appeal it. And New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R), who personally supports gay marriage, nonetheless said Feb. 5 the city will appeal.
City attorneys said Feb. 7 they will also ask the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, to hear the case immediately, skipping an intermediate court. The city's head attorney, Michael Cardozo, said officials are seeking the expedited ruling “so that a decision on this important issue can be reached as quickly as possible.”
Unlike in many states, the New York Supreme Court is a low-level trial court. There are two levels of appellate courts above it.
Although the judge's decision interprets the state constitution, at this point the ruling affects only marriage licenses issued in New York City.
Attorneys for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group, filed suit last year on behalf of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by New York City officials. They contended the equal-protection and privacy provisions of the New York Constitution requires that marriage rights and responsibilities apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual people.
In her ruling, Ling-Cohan noted that one of the plaintiffs, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial heterosexual couple who moved to California in 1966 in order to marry legally. Many states had laws banning interracial marriage until a 1967 United States Supreme Court ruling declared them unconstitutional.
“The challenges to laws banning whites and non-whites from marriage demonstrate that the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners,” Ling-Cohan wrote.
Quoting an 1871 Indiana ruling upholding such a law, she added, “Although anti-miscegenation (mixed-race marriage) laws were first enacted in colonial days, such laws were still common into the 1960s and upheld in case after case based on tradition rooted in perceived 'natural' law. For example, the Indiana Supreme Court relied on the 'undeniable fact' that the 'distribution of men by race and color is as visible in the providential arrangement of the earth as that of heat and cold.'”
Ling-Cohan was elected to her position in 2002, after having earned nominations from both Democrats and Republicans. Her district covers an area of lower Manhattan.
The case is Hernandez et al. vs. Robles.