There's a lot going on with marriage equality these days. Some good things, some bad things. I'd like to think that even the bad things eventually will lead to good.

Of course, the topic of discussion this week has been the ruling down in NYC by NY County Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan where she opined that, while she agreed with Elliot Spitzer's informal opinion that "...both the inclusion of gender-specific terms in multiple sections of the DRL [Domestic Relations Law], and the historical context in which the DRL was enacted, indicate that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage" the US Supreme Court has ruled, or, "...made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right..." Further, she further writes that "Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right to privacy, extend to protect marriage." She also cites the Loving decision, where Judge Skinner said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." I think this is important because many of the religious fundies and/or neocons constantly assert that marriage is not a "right," per se and, with that in mind, denying marriage to same-sex couples doesn't deny any rights. This is a very important step that needs to be taken before we can ever hope to realize our dreams. We need to establish marriage as a right.

Then she takes it a step further. She actually waded into the conservative argument that the laws don't bar anyone from entering into a civil marriage. This is an argument that is encountered time and time again that, as the laws exist, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. However, she doesn't stop the argument there, she presses on with the second part of this argument which is the right to choose who you marry. She cites the Goodridge v MA decision which stated, in part, "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..."

In order to legally (and constitutionally) prevent two people from marrying, the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The state offered two reasons: a) supporting the "traditional" definition (institution) of marriage and b) saving us from ourselves so that we won't have problems in other jurisdictions which won't recognize the unions. According to cases cited, the NY courts as well as the USSC have both made it clear that tradition can't be a reason to deny rights to people. She writes "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 apparently further argued that marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation and has been since the book of Genesis. The court observes that "...it is indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children." She goes on to say that, while the state beautifully stated the huge role that marriage plays in the lives of people, they were unable to define how that role would be harmed by the marriage of same-sex couples OR how the marriages of opposite gendered couples would be harmed by the marriages of same-sex couples.

Addressing the claim that they're "saving homosexuals" from legal difficulties in other states, the court first stated that, while they may be prevented from marrying, same sex couples will still cohabitate and have children either biologically or through adoption. The court then stated that "It would be 'irrational and perverse' (Carey v. Population Services Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy uner the laws of New York, on the grounds that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States." She ruled that this claimed state interest was irrational and a "grave disservice" to residents of NY state. The state also argued that the purpose of the federal welfare program (and its reform) was to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and to foster conditions where children were raised in two parent families. I was grinning when I read the judge's comments regarding this -- "As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children."

She also addressed the argument of "traditional marriage" that is so often seen and heard -- that same-sex marriage would change "traditional marriage." She correctly points out that history has shown that "...marriage is not a stagnant institution." She notes that prior to the 19th century, marriage was synonymous with "coverture," that is, that once married, the husband and wife become one person under law and that, for all intents and purposes, the woman gives up her identity and has no legal standing. What I didn't see was the argument that sometimes marriage was a business deal, whereby a man bartered his daughter for a dowry or for other personal gain -- a practice no longer seen or even allowed in this country. Men also had universal rights over his wife's body, back in those days -- not so now.

"Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one. Defendant has articulated no such legitimate state purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling state interest in such a bar." Judge Ling-Cohan ruled, unequivocally, that the NY DRL (Domestic Relations Law) violates due process of rights under the NY Constitution.

It was further argued by the state that if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, it should be through the legislature, not through the courts. The court notes that this argument was also used to argue to the Supreme Court that the ban on interracial marriages should be a states issue and that the Supreme Court should not rule on the unconstitutionality of the issue.

Her ruling, in a nutshell, is that the DRL should be rewritten to replace the words “husband, wife, bride and groom, his and her” with the word “spouse” and that this word be applied equally to men and women.

“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further

ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further

ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘bride,’ as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,’ and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further

ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex; it is further

ORDERED that implementation of this order is stayed forthwith, to and including 30 days from service of a copy with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office and serve a copy upon defendant, with notice of entry, within 10 days.”

Of course, just hours after the release of this ruling, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that he'll be appealing this ruling, because "...it's the right thing to do." He cited the couples in SF that had their marriages "snatched away" because they weren't legal. Apples and oranges because SF had no ruling allowing those marriages. Bloomberg's a politician -- a Republican who, along with all the other conservatives, wants to save the GLBT community from heartache and pain by continuing the discrimination.

As I read this ruling, I think about my own case and how this ruling can (and likely will) affect the outcome of it. I know that the lawyers were electrified with this ruling, and are busily discussing it and what it means – what parts of it they can use for our case. What bothers me is that there are too many judges sitting on the benches today that don’t rule based on law but, rather, their own sense of morality or, in some instances, straight down the party line. NYC is a “liberal” sort of town while here where I live, there’s a prevailing conservative tone. The county legislature is predominantly conservative and not receptive in any way, shape or form, to anything other than the rendering of lip service to same-sex unions.

I think it’s easy to hang onto those words that you want to see in a ruling of this nature, but I do find this ruling heartening and I find myself hopeful that it is yet another cornerstone in the foundation of equality that will be built here in this state – and that this state becomes a foundation stone for the nation.

Finally, for those of you out there who won’t dare allow yourself to hope – let go, let yourself hope. Hope is a beautiful, shining light that adds to our sense of purpose every single day – to deny that light is to live in the shadows of fear, doubt, and self-pity.

Dare to dream – but keep it real!