Proponents of Gay-Marriage Ban Make Hay of New York Ruling
WASHINGTON -The prospect that New York's highest court could legalize same-sex marriage in the Empire State could generate new support in Congress for a constitutional amendment to ban such unions, activists say.
The New York Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the traditional definition of marriage violates the state Constitution, and the amendment's supporters say the decision played right into their strategy.
They want to see another vote on the amendment, which was rejected in both legislative houses last Congress, as soon as enough pro-gay-marriage court cases "ripen" in state and federal courts, said the president of the Alliance for Marriage, Matt Daniels, whose group wrote the amendment.
Friday's ruling "is helping our cause," Mr. Daniels said.
"Within five minutes, the news of the decision was spreading through the relevant networks in Congress," said Mr. Daniels, who said he heard about the ruling from an ally on Capitol Hill before he heard it on the news.
Mayor Bloomberg has said the city will appeal the decision, which would require the city to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Should New York's top court, the Court of Appeals, uphold it, people should expect to see a nationwide outcry "equal in magnitude" to the one that met last year's decision by the top court in Massachusetts, which led to the introduction of the marriage amendment, Mr. Daniels said.
The president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, confirmed that opponents of gay marriage would "spring into action" if the New York decision survives appeal.
But he said he did not expect it to be upheld because the decision contradicted other New York rulings.
"I think people see this for what it is - a nutcake judge that made a bad ruling," he said. Nonetheless, he said the case demonstrates the need for an amendment to prevent what he called "these periodic judicial fire-drills."
A pro-gay-marriage group, Human Rights Campaign, also mobilized after Friday's decision, calling members of Congress to emphasize that the decision would not affect federal marriage benefits or a federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize each other's same-sex unions. Supporters of the amendment countered that New York State Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan cited the Massachusetts ruling, demonstrating that judicial decisions in one state echo in other states.
"This is the start of the domino effect that we have been talking about. It supports the case for the Marriage Protection Amendment," said Stephen Myers, a spokesman for Senator Allard, a Republican of Colorado. Mr. Allard reintroduced the amendment last month in the Senate under the title "Marriage Protection Amendment."
The bill has 28 co-sponsors to date.
Opponents of gay marriage in other states are concerned that decisions such as the one in New York open the door to couples asking that their marriages be recognized elsewhere, he said.
Should the decision be upheld, it would add to the sense of urgency driving the push for a federal amendment, agreed Glen Lavy, the senior counsel for an Arizona-based legal group that litigates religious liberty cases, the Alliance Defense Fund.
Some lawyers and lobbyists are not waiting for the outcome of the appeal to use the New York case as ammunition.
"We - and groups like us - are saying this particular decision illustrates the need for a federal constitutional amendment," said the general counsel to the conservative legal group, Liberty Counsel, Erik Stanley, who plans to file a friend-of-the-court brief if the decision is appealed.
The legislative director of Human Rights Campaign, Christopher Labonte, said the gay community would continue to fight for marriage rights both in legislatures and in courts, regardless of the other side's tactics.
"We have to try every way we can to achieve marriage equality," Mr. Labonte said.
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate voted against the measure in the last Congress.
However, Republican victories in November's election, the defeat of the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, and the rejection of gay marriage in state referenda have brought at least a handful of new votes to the pro-amendment camp, including four new pro-amendment senators.
But Senator Schumer said yesterday that he doubted the New York decision is having an effect on support for the amendment in the Senate.
"I don't expect such an amendment to come up until much later this year or next year," Mr. Schumer said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said he is "not terribly worried about it."
"I don't think the votes are there in either house," he said
Mr. Nadler said the matter should be left to individual states to decide. While advocates of gay marriage are taking a political risk by turning to the courts, the risk would be much greater if a federal court, rather than a state court, expanded the definition of marriage, Mr. Nadler said.
In its political impact, "that would be akin to Roe v. Wade," he said.
