Fucking bigotry

The Highlights of Chief Justice Judith Kaye's dissent (you can click the title of this post to read the article if you have no idea to what I am referring):

"Plaintiffs (including petitioners) are 44 same-sex couples who wish to marry. They include a doctor, a police officer, a public school teacher, a nurse, an artist and a State legislator. Ranging in age from under 30 to 68, plaintiffs reflect a diversity of races, religions and ethnicities. They come from upstate and down, from rural, urban and suburban settings. Many have been together in committed relationships for decades, and many are raising children--from toddlers to teenagers. Many are active in their communities, serving on their local school board, for example, or their cooperative apartment building board. In short, plaintiffs represent a cross-section of New Yorkers who want only to live full lives, raise their children, better their communities and be good neighbors.
"For most of us, leading a full life includes establishing a family. Indeed, most New Yorkers can look back on, or forward to, their wedding as among the most significant events of their lives. They, like plaintiffs, grew up hoping to find that one person with whom they would share their future, eager to express their mutual lifetime pledge through civil marriage. Solely because of their sexual orientation, however--that is, because of who they love--plaintiffs are denied the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. This State has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition" (1-2).

"The long duration of a constitutional wrong cannot justify its perpetuation, no matter how strongly tradition or public sentiment might support it" (10).

"Correctly framed, the question before us is not whether the marriage statutes properly benefit those they are intended to benefit--any discriminatory classification does that--but whether there exists any legitimate basis for excluding those who are not covered by the law" (11).

"The purported 'right' of gays and lesbians to enter into marriages with different-sex partners to whom they have no innate attraction cannot possibly cure the constitutional violation actually at issue here" (15).

"There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone. Plainly, the ability or desire to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage. The elderly are permitted to marry, and many same-sex couples do indeed have children. Thus, the statutory classification here--which prohibits only same-sex couples, and no one else, from marrying--is so grossly underinclusive and overinclusive as to make the asserted
rationale in promoting procreation 'impossible to credit' (Romer, 517 US at 635).4 Indeed, even the Lawrence dissenters observed that 'encouragement of procreation' could not 'possibly' be a justification for denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples, 'since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry'... [N]o one
rationally decides to have children because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage" (19-20).

"The State plainly has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children, but excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers this interest. In fact, it undermines it" (21).

"The government cannot legitimately justify discrimination against one group of persons as a mere desire to preference another group" (23).

"To say that discrimination is "traditional" is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely 'for its own sake' (24).

"The State asserts an interest in maintaining uniformity with the marriage laws of other states. But our marriage laws currently are not uniform with those of other states. For example, New York--unlike most other states in the nation--permits first cousins to marry" (25).

"Finally, and most fundamentally, to justify the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from civil marriage because 'others do it too' is no more a justification for the discriminatory classification than the contention that the discrimination is rational because it has existed for a long time. As history has well taught us, separate is inherently unequal" (26).

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation. The Court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy.
"I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep" (27).

Should you wish to read the entire decision (and it certainly is illuminating), you can find it here.

It is indeed a sad day for liberty and freedom for all in this country.

Should you wish to read an excellent and titillating interview with Taylor Hicks, you can find it here.

That, my friends, is all.