(AgapePress) - In a decisive one-two punch, courts in two different states have dealt considerable blows to the homosexual agenda's nationwide push for legalized same-sex "marriage." While the decision out of the Bible Belt state of Georgia surprised few, the ruling out of New York -- typically a hotbed of liberalism -- certainly caught conservatives by surprise and earned their approval.

In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled that the state constitution guarantees no right to homosexual marriage. Using an argument more often heard from pro-family activists dealing with judicial activism, the court said the New York constitution "does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now," the opinion continued, "but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."

The reaction of one Christian attorney perhaps sums up the feelings of those who have seen liberal judicial activists undercut the legislative efforts of traditionalists. "Finally," says Brian Fahling of the Center for Law & Policy, "we have a court that is functioning like a court."

Again sounding like a family advocacy group, the court said there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage to one man and one woman -- "both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children."

First, said the court, marriage can be an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, child-bearing relationships. Also, lawmakers could rationally conclude that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father," said the New York court.

"Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or here eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like," the court added.

The New York ruling dealt with four cases involving 44 same-sex couples from around the state. In three of the cases, lower courts had rejected a right to same-sex marriage.

An Exercise of 'Judicial Restraint'
Attorney Steve Crampton says given the liberal leanings of the Empire State's highest court, this decision was surprising. "In this decision I think they demonstrated a remarkable degree of judicial restraint -- and the court is to be applauded for this decision," says Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy.

Steve Crampton

Crampton see the decision as a major blow to efforts by radical homosexual activists to redefine marriage. "For years the homosexuals have used the courts to get what they could never get through the democratic process," he explains. "In New York, at least, they will have to seek change the old-fashioned way."

Still, the chief counsel cautions that a federal judge could easily reverse the ruling. And that is why he says a federal marriage amendment is still needed.

"Those who oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment on the federal level will point to this and say state courts are perfectly adequate to address the problem," he comments. "To that argument I would respond that while it is true that this court did the right thing, the court also readily recognized that the state legislature was free to adopt new laws conferring either outright marriage benefits upon same-sex couples or kind of a counterfeit marriage like a civil union-type status."

Rev. Bill Banuchi, a spokesman for the New York Christian Coalition, says while the ruling "brings a shining ray of hope for the restoration of a bit of sanity" to the state's judicial system, he still finds it "scary" that two justices on the bench agreed that laws can be "whatever they want them to be." Banuchi believes the issue of same-sex marriage will ultimately be resolved by a federal marriage amendment.

"You can't have 50 states with 50 definitions of marriage and still be 'one nation under God,'" he says in a press release. "But for today, we rejoice for a little sanity restored -- hallelujah!"

Court Tactic Backfiring
Within hours after the New York announcement, more good news for marriage traditionalists came out of Georgia when that state's Supreme Court unanimously reinstated a constitutional amendment -- approved by 77 percent of voters in November 2004 -- that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A lower-court judge had ruled that the approved initiative violated the state's single-subject rule for such ballot measures.

Anita Staver

Anita Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, sees the Georgia decision as an indication that homosexual activists' aggressive use of the courts to undermine marriage has backfired.

"When groups pushing the homosexual agenda fail to win at the ballot box, they try to undermine democracy by using the courts to eliminate the voice of the people," Staver says. "Recent efforts to challenge constitutional amendments will also backfire." And Americans, she adds, are not likely to "idly stand by and watch marriage go up in smoke."

AFA attorney Brian Fahling agrees. "The [Georgia] court's ruling returns to the people the right of self-government," he observes. "So many of our courts have been fashioning social policy that it seemed as if legislatures had become irrelevant."

Evidently Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue was waiting in the wings to respond on behalf of Georgia voters. He had said he would call a special session of the General Assembly if the high court did not reinstate the constitutional amendment.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines