Traditional marriage won two victories today in state courts in the United States.

First, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that the state's marriage laws were constitutional.

New York's highest court today turned back a broad attempt by gay and lesbian couples across the state to win the right to marry and raise children under New York State's marriage law, saying that denying marriage to same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution.

In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.

The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, who was appointed by Gov. George Pataki, found that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on rational social goals, primarily the protection and welfare of children.

"Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals," Judge Smith wrote in his 22-page opinion. For example, he wrote, it could be argued that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, a mother and a father, rather than by gay or lesbian couples.

In other words, absent a clear and convincing showing that a law violates a right, the decision on what is proper policy is in the hands of the people and their elected legislators, not the courts. This decision is important in that it does recognize that there is no constitutional bar to or requirement of homosexual marriage -- and that like ages of consent, consanguinity and other issues, the state may set reasonable limits on what marriage will be recognized. This upholds a fundamental principle of American government which is oft overlooked by those who seek social change against the will of the people.

The Georgia decision likewise is a triumph for the right of the people to control the direction of government.

In Georgia, where three-quarters of voters approved a ban on gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004, the top court reinstated the ban Thursday, ruling unanimously that it did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language was misleading, asking voters to decide on same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.

The Georgia court saw through the semantic game which was being played by the plaintiffs in this case -- and indeed rejected an argument that amounted to "the voters of Georgia are too stupid to know what they are voting on." The clear will of three out of every four voters was to ban homosexual marriage and civil unions -- and to argue that they wee two different issues was specious.

The simple fact of the matter, ignored by the supporters of homosexual marriage (or dismissed as irrelevant) is that the people of the United States support traditional marriage and oppose homosexual marriage. The statistics make the case for me.

Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

In two of those cases, Vermont and Massachusetts, the institutions as they now exist were imposed by judges who interpreted eighteenth century documents to confer rights that neither the majority of those who adopted them nor the majority of those alive at the time accepted as being contained in them.

It is important to note why these cases are in court.

With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight.

Yes, you read that correctly -- this was a deliberate act intended to defy the will of the people as expresssed by the elected government. These groups and individuals decided that what they could not win through persuasion they would have imposed upon the people of their respective states. Dare I suggest that this should be unacceptable to Americans of all political persuasion?