Scatter-Gavel

Who would ever have thought that a court ruling on sodomarriage exhibiting both judicial restraint and moral underpinnings would come out of New York state's highest court?

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

Anybody who didn't do a whiplash-inducing double-take upon hearing that obviously wasn't listening. And that's too bad, because the above report was no work. From Judge Smith's majority opinion:

We emphasize once again that we are deciding only this constitutional question. It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. We have presented some (though not all) of the arguments against same-sex marriage because our duty to defer to the Legislature requires us to do so. We do not imply that there are no persuasive arguments on the other side - and we know, of course, that there are very powerful emotions on both sides of the question.

The dissenters assert confidently that "future generations" will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 28). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result - as many undoubtedly will be - will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made. [emphases added]

Wow; when did Judge Smith go back to eating his Wheaties? A judge - on any level - deferring policymaking to the legislature? Next thing you know Superman will once again stand for the American way.

And yes, the moral unpinnings were there, Judge Smith's demurral notwithstanding; he just inserted them in a very pragmatic way:

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships, heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement — in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits — to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

People forget that there are actually very practical reasons for moral and ethical standards. That's why the Holy Bible is oftentimes referred to as the human "owner's manual." And nowhere should this be more obvious than the divinely-instituted marriage relationship, the attempted debauching of which can only have the ultimate result (no matter what the lavender lobby claims) of eradicating holy matrimony altogether by draining it of any coherent meaning. What no-fault divorce and "cohabitation" got started, sodomarriage would finish off. And off society would go down the slippery slope to applying the concept of "marriage" to pretty much any form of relationship, putting all of them on an equal moral footing, no matter how depraved, and granting all legitimacy and societal approval that none of them, apart from REAL marriage, merit or deserve.

As I read Judge Smith's words above, it sounds to me like his "coulds" for the New York legislature are implicit "shoulds." And yet he and the Court of Appeals majority are leaving it up to the empire state's elected representatives to decide, as it should be.

I can't decide which is the more astounding.

~ ~ ~

From the sublime, we now turn to the ridiculous (via icarusfalls):

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday barring the Navy from using a type of sonar, allegedly harmful to marine mammals, during a Pacific warfare exercise scheduled to begin this week. The order comes three days after the Navy obtained a six-month national defense exemption from the Defense Department allowing it to use "mid-frequency active sonar."

I guess sunken naval vessels are good for marine life by giving them new "homes" to move into. Unless, of course, the destroyed ships are nuclear powered. I guess that'll be the next restraining order.

~ ~ ~

And finally, here's a picture to take to dreamland tonight:

The Supreme Court, by agreeing to hear a case on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, will finally judge on the alleged threat of global warming. The stakes are huge. Should the Court find in favor of the plaintiffs, it would put the EPA in control of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future.

If you can't sleep after that, don't fret; try counting Justice Kennedys (kind of like plucking flower petals and saying, "He'll screw us, he'll leave us free; he'll screw us, he'll leave us free...."). If that doesn't work, you can always go say goodbye to your life savings, just in case....