I was very surprised this morning to read about a judge who held (correctly) I think, that gay marriage is not a matter for judges, but for the people’s representatives (who, unlike judges and European politicians, are actually beholden to their constituents):
New York’s highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.
The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York’s marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote.
“We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives,” Smith wrote.
Gay marriage may or may not happen ultimately in America, but it certainly is not the type of sea-change in a society that judges should be deciding.
Incidentally, the article had a tidbit of information that surprised me. It turns out that Rosie O’Donnell’s brother was one of the plaintiffs since he too is gay. This supports the idea that being gay has a genetic component. (And I know that gays are theoretically less likely to reproduce, so the gene ought to have died out, but the fact is that, for a variety of reasons gays have, at all times, had children — especially women, who often haven’t been in the position to refuse sex.) There are also indications that homosexuality is a result of hormones in utero (which explains certain very, very young boys I know who are markedly effeminate). This “biology is destiny” component to homosexuality needs more attention — from scientists without an axe to grind — and the results should seriously be considered as part of a national debate on the subject of gay marriage.