By Jason J. McGuire

On Tuesday, September 2, 2008, a Bronx County Supreme Court judge upheld Governor Paterson’s directive to recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions other than New York. 

The judge drew a distinction between New York’s Domestic Relations Law (which defines what types of marriages can be performed within New York State) and the state’s marriage recognition rule (which allows the state to recognize marriages performed outside the state). 

ADF attorneys, Jim Campbell (left) and Brian Raum (right)

This is an important point for conservatives to understand.  The movement in Massachusetts and California to permit same-sex marriages is part of a wider and published strategy on the part of same-sex marriages to test the courts, forcing the entire country to recognize and then affirm gay marriage. Currently, same-sex marriage is permitted in Canada, South Africa, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and as already alluded to, California and Massachusetts.

Pro-family advocates argue that, if New York surrenders its autonomy on the issue of homosexual marriage, that potentially opens the door to polygamous relationships as well.  It is true that these types of marriages are illegal in New York State and viewed as abhorrent to the public at large, but only a generation ago the same was said of same-sex marital relationships. 

For an example of where recognition of same-sex marriage can lead, look no further than the Netherlands. The Catholic News Agency is reporting that the Scandinavian country, which already recognizes same-sex marriage, has opened its official registers to polygamists. Although the Dutch officially ban the practice of polygamy, they've agreed to make concessions for the country's immigrants. If Muslims move to the Netherlands with multiple wives, a new policy calls for the local leaders to register those marriages. Local registrars are recognizing polygamous marriages every week.

The Family Research Council responded to the news out of the Netherlands with the following, “This is exactly what social conservatives have argued all along. When a government redefines marriage, there's no limit to the perversity that will follow. While liberals insist that same-sex ‘marriage’ is the ultimate goal, their demands only lay the groundwork for other relationships to demand the same entitlements.”

In her decision, Justice Billings wrote, “The Governor’s directive is an incremental but important step toward equality long denied, even if, according to the New York Court of Appeals, full equality is not constitutionally mandated.”

This “incremental step toward equality” is something that legislators should heed.  The expansion of homosexual rights contributed to the court’s decision.  In her ruling, Justice Billings cited other protections extended to same-sex couples (such as the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act and the inclusion of sexual orientation in the state’s hate crimes law) as evidence that homosexuality is no longer considered abhorrent.  It would seem that the speed of the slippery slope is steadily increasing.

The Alliance Defense Fund, who argued the Supreme Court case on behalf of several Republican legislators and pro-family leaders, promises to seek an appeal.