What a blow to our collective heads!!

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled this morning that "the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples, and that state lawmakers, not the courts, are better suited to consider the issue."

That's disappointing in and of itself, but the worst thing is what the court based its reasoning on.

They basically accepted and adopted the gay bashers' argument that marriage should be between a man and woman:

• because it's always been like that (so what, things change, Hello 21^st century),
• because only a man and a woman can procreate and so they deserve an institution for them alone (which follows that, from now on, we should test all heterosexuals for normal reproductive organs before they marry; if there is a problem, they can't marry, and if they can marry but still don't have kids after, say, a couple years, their marriage should be annulled -- and not be allowed to re-marry),
• and because kids do better when they see a man and a woman in their daily lives (the biggest load of crap ever held as an argument, disputed by sound scientific studies and countless medical professionals).

Needless to say, it's a huge blow for all gays and lesbians hoping to marry their loved ones and finally be protected by the same rights that protect their heterosexual friends.

Worse yet, it will clearly embolden the enemy, and this ruling will be used in the future by other courts that aren't prepared to take on their duty to protect the minorities in our society.

And this happened in New York, of all places, a liberal and forward-thinking state, home to one of the largest gay populations on Earth.

In a decision that has been eagerly awaited by both sides in the gay marriage debate, the court, the highest in the state's judiciary system, concluded that the legislature could have "a rational basis" for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, in large part because of their ability to bear children.

The court did not rule that the state should not or could not allow gay marriages, only that the state constitution did not require that it allow them.

The decision called the idea of same-sex marriage "a relatively new one" and said that for most of history, society has conceived of marriage exclusively as a bond between a man and a woman. "A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted," the decision stated.

"There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted," the court said, "both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children."

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

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

Astounding.

Losing really hurts.