PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE
JOINT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has defined the family as
“consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the
holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our
civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15,
45 (1885), quoted in United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401 (1908); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court described marriage as “an
institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it
is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in 1977 stated that “the basic
foundation of the family in our society [is] the marriage relationship,” Smith v. Org. of
Foster Families For Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843 (1977); and
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals of New York upheld as constitutional
New York’s Domestic Relations Laws, [articles 2 and 3 specifically] which limit
marriage to only between opposite-sex couples. See Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.
3d 338, 366 (N.Y. 2006); see also Seymour v. Holcomb 26 A.D.3d 661, (N.Y. App.
Div. 2006) (holding, “In enacting [New York’s] Domestic Relations Law,
legislature intended marriage to be between one woman and one man”); see e.g.,
N.Y. Dom. Rel. §§ 12; 15 (New York Legislature’s use of terms “husband and
wife”; “the bride” and “the groom”); and
WHEREAS, though New York has provided for same-sex marriage, the
Court of Appeals of New York in 2006 recognized that, “until a few decades ago, it
was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which
marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of
different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this
belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude,” Hernandez v.
Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 361 (N.Y. 2006); Moreover, the Court of Appeals of New
York stated that, not only is the right to marry someone of the same sex not deeply
rooted in the nation’s history and tradition, but also “it has not even been asserted
until relatively recent times.” See id. at 362, therefore, the court concluded that
same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right and that it could not be asserted
over and above the state’s legitimate interests, See Hernandez, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 36263 (N.Y. 2006); Among these state interests, the Court of Appeals found,
“protecting the welfare of children is a legitimate governmental interest, and we
have shown that there is a rational relationship between that interest and the
limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Hernandez, 7 N.Y. 3d at 363; see
also 359 (explaining that, “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…[or] the Legislature
could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to
grow up with both a mother and a father”); and
WHEREAS, in 2013 the United States Supreme Court officially severed its
respect for marriage by declaring unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) which defined marriage for federal purposes as existing between one
man and one woman, United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
NOW THEREFORE, the Legislature of the State of New York hereby
submits the following Joint Resolution to the United States Congress entitled
Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Application to the United States Congress
to call a Convention for proposing an amendment
to the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, the Legislature of the State of
New York by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives hereby makes
application to the United States Congress to call a Convention for proposing the following
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution
Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define
or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman,
and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United
States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.