The Associated Press reports:

A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.

  It's worth noting that this is only the decision of a trial court; it will be up to the New York state appellate courts to figure out whether the decision will stand. (Hat tip: Howard).

  Are there any experts on the NY state appellate courts who can make some informed guesses about what the appellate judges will do? If so, please enlighten us in the comment section.

  UPDATE: The opinion is available here. My very quick skim of the opinion suggests that the provisions of the NY Constitution the court relied on are textually identical to the U.S. Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, and that the trial court relied on a mix of judicial precedents interpreting the U.S. constitution, the Massachusetts constitution, the Hawaiian constitution, the Washington State constitution, the Vermont constitution, New York law, and Canadian law to justify its result.

  ANOTHER UPDATE: A bit of background on the judge who decided the case is available here.

  YET ANOTHER UPDATE: You can find links to recent state court cases on gay marriage here. And Scrappleface chimes in on this judicial trend with a post, "NY Judge Bans Heterosexual Marriage":

  A day after ruling that New York City must allow homosexual marriages, a state judge today declared traditional heterosexual marriage unconstitutional.
  "Homosexual marriage rests on the bedrock of judicial opinion," wrote Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, "But heterosexual marriage finds justification in little more than religious myth, antiquated tradition and a few unconstitutional state and local laws. These are all hollow arguments when compared with the firm foundation provided by a growing number of judges."

Link via Howard.