"Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate."

"It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship."

So said the intermediate appellate court in New York yesterday, as it reversed a lower court's ruling that would have authorized gay marriage in New York City. The NYT characterized the 20-page opinion as "a ringing defense of heterosexual marriage." Judging from the article, however, I'd say it's more of a ringing defense of legislative power to define marriage, a ringing rejection of the notion that the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples violates equal protection or due process.

UPDATE: I've read the text of the case, Hernandez v. Robles. Here's a key passage, showing the kind of deference to the legislature -- rather than enthusiasm for heterosexual marriage -- that pervades the opinion:

The role of the courts is "to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes." Deprivation of legislative authority, by judicial fiat, to make important, controversial policy decisions prolongs divisiveness and defers settlement of the issue; it is a miscarriage of the political process involved in considering such a policy change....

Interestingly, the court at this point cites an article written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Speaking in a Judicial Voice," which it characterizes as "urging a measured approach in judicial decisionmaking and citing in contrast the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision, which prematurely ended the political process for legislative change on the abortion issue and resulted in protracted controversy."