(New Paltz, New York) A New York State appeals court has ruled that New Paltz mayor Jason West "exceeded his authority" and "undermined the principle of separation of powers" when he performed marriages for same-sex couples in the Hudson Valley hamlet last year.
West performed the weddings for 24 gay and lesbian couples in front of the village hall on Feb. 27, 2004 (story) even though state law does not allow same-sex couples to get marriage licenses.
West was charged with 24 counts of violating the state's domestic relations law. The charges were dismissed by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages. (story)
But the county prosecutor appealed. West was barred from performing more weddings as the legal battled continued.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in its ruling issued on Thursday said that the issue in the case is not whether the state's marriage laws are constitutional, but rather did West violate state law by performing the marriage ceremonies.
In his legal arguments West maintained that he acted legally, arguing that under the equality provisions of the state constitution he was obligated to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The court disagreed. "This case is about orderly government," the court's written ruling said. The judgment said that a public official has no right to disregard a law he feels is unconstitutional otherwise, it would mean "permitting a part-time local official to effectively amend the laws of this state with input from neither the Legislature nor the courts."
Writing for the five-judge panel, Justice John Lahtinen issued a stern rebuke.
"West robed himself with judicial powers and declared the marriage laws of this state unconstitutional. Having concluded that the Legislature violated the constitution, he then wrapped himself with that body's power and drafted his own set of documents for licensing marriages. In so doing, he clearly exceeded his role as a village mayor."
The court noted that the constitutionality of New York State's ban on same-sex marriage is already being argued in other courts.
Appeals in two cases involving same-sex marriage rights are under way in the state.
In one case, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing 12 same-sex couples, among them New York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta. (story) O'Donnell is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell.
The appeal involves an upstate ruling that upheld New York State's ban on same-sex marriage.
In the other case New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is appealing a February ruling by Judge Doris Ling-Cohan that said the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and that the New York city clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex. (story)
It is expected that two cases eventually will be combined and heard by the New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Objectively, I have to agree with this ruling. At the same time, I'm grateful that Mayor West did what he did, as it set yet another action in motion in our own state.
Of note is the fact that a conservative Christian group filed suit to have more than 200 marriages performed in New Paltz (by Mayor West and the clergy members who were later charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license) invalidated. In September of last year, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanagh ruled that the couples married would have to be named as parties to the case, and given their say in court on the matter. The group vowed to assemble the names of every couple married in New Paltz (like us) and return. In the past year since this ruling, we've never received any correspondence or other notification regarding the continuation of this action to have our marriage nullified.
But it's not the suit to nullify the marriages that's of note, it's that the suit was brought in the first place along with the judge's refusal to nullify them. Does that mean that our New Paltz marriage documents bear some legitimacy? Why else would these so-called Christians bring suit to have them invalidated and why else would a judge actually refuse to do so? If they had no legal basis to start with (as many anti-gay groups claim), then why didn't the judge just dismiss the suit saying that these marriages had no legal merit of their own to start with?
The charges against the clergy were eventually dropped as well. While the ruling was more of a soap-box lecture by the dismissing judge, it should really have been about the separation of church and state. If the clergy believe in same-sex marriage and perform these marriages, then how can they be prosecuted for these beliefs? THAT is what the central issue of that particular case should have been. However, it's entirely possible that the judge received counsel from one of her colleagues and decided to take it on as a soap-box issue rather than a constitutional one, lest more clergy take a positive ruling regarding the separation of church and state as a license to perform same-sex marriages throughout the state. Best to keep it confined to just one small town in upstate New York.
I would really like for this matter to be resolved, once and for all, here in New York. It seems like that old proverb about the monkey jumping out of the well, where he jumps up 3 feet and slides back two. Yes, eventually, we'll get out of the well, but the whole sliding back 2 feet thing can wear on the nerves and the emotions quite nicely.
