Daniel Hernandez (left) and Nevin Cohen are
two of the plaintiffs in a closely watched lawsuit pushing for same-sex marriage
in New York.
advertisement
advertisement
|
By JAMES WITHERS
Friday, September 16, 2005
For Rev. Rob Williams, the whole debate about gay marriage comes down to two
of his parishioners. The male couple had been together for 52 years. One partner
became sick due to lung cancer and after repeated stays in the hospital, returned
home for hospice care. He died there. Although they were registered as domestic
partners, and a health proxy and power of attorney were on record, the surviving
partner had no legal claim over his mate’s remains. A sister, who had
not been spoken to in years, had to be called for funeral arrangements to be
made.
“That is really sad and wrong,” said Williams, who is an associate
minister at Marble Collegiate Church. “The laws need to change.”
Williams and other supporters of same-sex marriage were on hand when the state’s
Appellate Division, First Department heard oral arguments in Hernandez v. Robles,
a lawsuit that is seeking marriage for same-sex couples in New York.
In February, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor
of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in March 2004. In
her 62-page decision, Ling-Cohan wrote, “Marriage is viewed by society
as the utmost expression of a couple’s commitment and love. Plaintiffs
may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage.”
The city appealed, asking the case to be “fast-tracked” to the
Court of Appeals. In late March, the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest
court, ruled the case should be heard at the Appellate Division first.
The Sept. 13 hearing was in front of a five-judge panel and Susan Sommer,
Lambda Legal’s senior counsel and lead attorney in the case and her clients
held a press conference on the steps of the courtroom. Sommer argued the courts
need to be involved in this case because they are meant to protect the rights
of the minority.
“The courts serve a quintessential important role in our society”
Sommer said. “A role given to them by the people through the Constitution
to guarantee everyone’s constitutional rights. Not just those in the majority.
That is why this is a case for the courts in this state.”
Sommer also pointed out that by bringing this case to the judicial branch,
she and her supporters were not turning court “activist.”
“The courts were not called activist when they struck anti-miscegenation
laws that discriminated against couples that wanted to marry across racial lines,”
Sommer said.
The city argued same-sex marriage should be handled in Albany.
“ This is the type of issue that should be resolved by the legislature,”
said city attorney Leonard Koerner. “The mayor’s position is that
there should be a final resolution by the Court of Appeals. He would support
legislation when it is introduced, but he does not believe it should be by judicial
fiat.”
Mayor Bloomberg has publicly said he supported gay marriage, but he had the
city appeal the Ling-Cohan decision.
There is no timeline for when the Appellate Division will make a ruling. No
matter what is decided, Sommer thinks the case will eventually be heard by the
Court of Appeals.
In the tri-state area, Connecticut’s legislature approved a civil-union
bill that will go into effect next month. In June, a New Jersey State Appeals
Court upheld the Garden State’s ban on gay marriage; however, because
there was a dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court must accept an appeal. New
Jersey does have a domestic partner law that was passed in January 2004 and
applies to same-sex couples and to opposite-sex couples in which one partner
is 62 or older.
Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage after a court
ruling. In early September the California Legislature, passed a same-sex marriage
bill, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto it.
Rabbi Lisa Grushcow of Congregation Rodeph Sholom, joined Williams because
she wanted to point out that there are religious opinions on gay marriage other
than ones often shown in the media.
“Any opposition to same sex marriage should not try to stand on religious
points of view because first, it isn’t the only religious point of view,”
Grushcow said. “Secondly in this country that shouldn’t determine
what the law is.”
|
