A New York State judge in Manhattan ruled that denying gay couples the right to marry violates the state constitution. The matter will now go to New York's highest court, but it raises the possibility New York City (the only place where the ruling applies) could be ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning next month. (Here's the New York Times story.)
The case was brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of five New York City gay couples.
While I celebrated the Massachusetts ruling ordering that state to recognize gay marriages, I've since changed my view and now believe a more effective and practical strategy is to go to bat for civil unions with all the state rights spouses have, as in Vermont. Polls show far wider support for civil unions than for marriage, and many conservatives now view it as the "compromise" position -- despite the hard right's opposition.
Once the electorate is comfortable with the level of recognition granted under civil unions, it would be far easier to advance to full marriage equality. But this view is certainly not shared by all of our IGF contributing authors, to be sure.
In any event, the activists have staked out a strategy of using the nation's most liberal courts to order full marriage recognition now, the electorate be damned. While I'd like to believe they'll succeed in securing marriage rights for gay Americans, I think it's a high-risk, all-or-nothing proposition. (See my Jan. 29 posting about activists in Connecticut scuttling a civil unions bill that was about to pass.)
And if the backlash against judicially decreed gay marriage leads to passage of the proposed federal "marriage protection" amendment - or even just more state amendments in addition to the 13 passed last year - history will record this approach as well-intentioned but strategically calamitous.
But maybe I'm wrong; the next few years will let us know.
Update:
Gay Patriot predicts a New York statewide voter referendum in
2005 that will defeat gay marriage (in the comments area, that
legal possibility is disputed). I'd say it's more likely the
state's highest court will put the kabosh on the lower court ruling
- and if it instead decreed the rights of marriage through civil
unions, I wouldn't be displeased.