|
Your reasoning is much the same as in the dissent and it is compelling as regards the two possible rational bases the majority opinion puts forward (I'm assuming that they are offering them as possible bases and not the only possible bases) but no so much the second one wherein there is a common sense basis (not necessarily correct common sense, just in the sense of a folk rationale in the absence of actual evidence) that says heterosexual parenting is better for children than homosexual parenting (and therefore the state would have a rational basis on which to encourage one but not the other). This is the basis on which the opinion seems to more prominently rest. That for a very long time society has been of the opinion that one-woman, one-man is best for child rearing and that there is not yet any sufficient evidence for over turning this folk wisdom.
What I would have liked to see is a requirement that the New York legislature make explicit its reasoning for legislating the exclusion. The court is correct that it is a basic assumption of American legislation and jurisprudence that marriage is one-man, one-woman. If there are valid reasons for this to be continued and invalid reasons, and if a valid reason could become invalid over time through research then the Legislature should be required to make explicit that which was implicit so that it can be properly evaluated.
|