A trial judge in Manhattan has ruled that New York's marriage statutes discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of that state's constitution. Doris Ling-Cohan declared that the words husband, wife, groom and bride as they appear in the relevant sections 'shall be construed to mean spouse … [ and ] apply equally to either men or women.'
The case was brought in March 2004 by Lambda Legal on behalf of five New York City couples who had sought and been denied marriage licenses. The judge's Feb. 4 ruling is stayed for 30 days to allow for appeal.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the city would appeal the decision, meaning no marriages will be done until the issue is decided by a higher court. Bloomberg said the city would try to expedite the appeal to the state's highest court. Bloomberg also said he personally favored gay marriage, according to The New York Times.
Judge Ling-Cohan's 62-page decision was at times lyrical; replete with legal citation; and laid out in lucid, readable, and personal terms why there could be no other outcome. Her decision began:
'From the literary references of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, to the anti-miscegenation laws of this country's recent past barring interracial marriage, the freedom to choose whom to marry has consistently been the subject of public outcry and controversy. In fact, ironically, the parents of one of the plaintiffs were, themselves, barred from marrying each other by an anti-miscegenation law that made it illegal for interracial couples to marry.'
Plaintiff Curtis Woolbright's parents were from Texas where state law had prohibited them from marrying because one was Black and the other white. So they moved to California to tie the knot and raise a family, as Karen Woolbright attested in her statement and Judge Ling-Cohan cited in her opinion.
The decision went on to say, 'The challenges to laws banning whites and non-whites from marriage demonstrates 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 noted, 'As other States have also observed, the right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected from unwarranted State interference … . It is a fundamental right of free men.
'… Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.'
Backing her opinion up with case law citations she wrote: 'It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse.'
The state's second argument in denying marriage to gays was the need for uniformity with other states. The judge said, 'It would be a grave disservice to residents of New York [ to deny its citizens rights ] simply because those rights may not be acknowledged elsewhere.
'History demonstrates that marriage is not a stagnant institution … . There clearly has been a steady evolution in the institution of marriage throughout history,' Ling-Cohan said in reviewing how women have changed from chattel of their husbands—at one point a husband could not be charged with raping his wife—to equals. The most recent significant change in marriage has been no-fault divorce.
More positively she wrote, 'Recognition that the right to choice in marriage applies to all people, including gays and lesbians, is consistent not only with the changing definition and purpose of marriage, but also with New York's evolving history of respect for, and protection of, same-sex relationships' as demonstrated by actions taken by the state's courts, legislature, executive branch, and local governments.
The decision applies only to New York City. New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer declined to defend the state marriage law at the trial level, leaving it up to the city clerk to do so. The city bar association has issued position papers strong supporting gay marriage. And now Mayor Bloomberg is appealing this latest ruling in order to have the state's highest court make a decision.
This 'historic ruling delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers,' said Susan Sommer, the lead Lambda Legal attorney on the case. 'The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law. Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides.'
'Last week Mary Jo and I celebrated our 23rd anniversary together, but we've never had all the protections and rights that come with marriage,' said Jo-Ann Shain, one of the plaintiffs in the case. 'We need these protections to take responsibility for each other and for our daughter, and we are enormously grateful that the court saw that and said our family should be treated equally.'
'We're getting hitched,' plaintiff Curtis Woolbright said exuberantly. 'We're so excited about this we can't express it.'
'The court simply recognized that every New Yorker deserves the same promise of equality under law,' said Seth Kilbourn, who heads up the Human Rights Campaign's marriage project. 'This is about real people who are being denied real protections.'
Social conservatives issued their standard rant about defending traditional marriage. The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins said, 'Unless Congress takes action to defend the institution of marriage we can expect these judicial fire drills prompted by aberrant judges.'
They had to drop the bit about 'unelected judges' because Ling-Cohan is elected. And as Lambda Legal pointed out in their press release, 'She was the only candidate in a field of 12 who was nominated by four parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties. She received 50,384 votes on the Republican Party line,' more than most of the other candidates.
The only think 'aberrant' about judge Doris Ling-Cohan is the broad extent of respect she has garnered in the public arena by those who know her best.
