Posted on 02/04/2005 6:49:42 PM PST by NativeTexun
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.
Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that "delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers."
"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for five couples who brought the lawsuit. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."
State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of thesame sex.
The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."
Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples in the case, said they were thrilled by the ruling and believed it would offer their family increased legal protection. They have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter.
"We're just overjoyed," said Shain. "We didn't think it would ever happen.
Kennedy said she wants to marry Shain as soon as possible. "I can't wait," she said. "We went to buy a (marriage) license in March 2004 and couldn't get it. That's what started this whole thing."
The judge noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Now that the election is over, you should have expected an onslaught by the liberal judiciary--a last gasp before Bush has his way.
I wonder if the judge is homosexual.
How can they determine that homosexuals are somehow being deprived of a right to marry. Homosexuals can marry, just not people of the same gender.
This is why we need to fix the judiciary. Some judge essentially deciding that people who engage in homosexual behavior have rights that never existed before. Does this mean that heterosexuals can marry people of the same sex too?
This might sound wierd, but suppose two brothers are single and one has a REALLY good job with excellent benefits. Why couldn't one brother (hetero) marry the other brother (hetero) and thereby provide his benefits to him?
This demonstrates just how crazy it is. There would be no legal way to argue against such a thing.
This is the NY state judiciary which Bush can't do anything about.
Federal Marriage Amendment is becoming more and more likely. At this pace it will be an active issue in 2006.
The state has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage for
the protection of society, and most religions accept that authority
by performing the marriage ceremony only when a duly issued licence
is presented.
The state may forbid, and reject, marriage between father and daughter,
mother and son, brother and sister, man and dog, etc. It's power to also reject
marriage between man and man or woman and woman is a legitimate
exercize of its power to protect.
Cities are creatures of the state and must follow state law,
as we saw in California (see Newsom).
The judge is wrong and will be overturned.
The FEDERAL Marriage Amendment would end these BS rulings from state judges.
Judge, you should be aware of the law of unintended consequences. If the state cannot regulate marriage by determining who may marry, then it cannot determine what may marry either.
So besides just gays, polygamists, family members, etc., we can now have marriages between a who and a what.
Funny...
Yes, but you can't pass a constitutional amendment by executive order and the FMA sure isn't gonna make it out of the Congress or through the states.
An interesting sidenote is that Justice Ling-Cohan was nominated by both the Democratic and the Republican parties when she ran for election (as well as the Liberal & Conservative parties of NY).
Marriage is not a right. You have to get permission to marry.
Hell, if same-sex couples can marry, I want to marry 100 women. Polygamy should be legalized too... just you all wait and see... the flood gates are going to be opened soon... same-sex, poly, animals... only a matter of time... blah.
Frankly, I'm not sure a constitutional amendment receives approval from the State Legislature. The judge may or may not be overturned for now, but given the State's politics and the way the political winds are blowing, there is no question that the judiciary will impose this eventually, that is, within two to three years. At that point, I would say that the white flight of the muiddle class, which has been going on for some time, will become a tidal wave.
APA Judge a Shoo-in For NY Supreme Court
By Heather Harlan
Special to AsianWeek
When voters in Chinatown and other parts of lower Manhattan head to the polls this coming Election Day, the odds are pretty good they will make history. On the ballot will be Judge Doris Ling-Cohan, who — if the four parties who nominated her have their way — stands poised to become the first Asian Pacific American woman justice on the Supreme Court of New York State.
Running unopposed, Ling-Cohan, a Democrat, is also the nominee of the Republican, Liberal and Working Family parties.
Ling-Cohan’s campaign for the state’s top bench is the latest leg in a long journey through the world of New York’s legal system that began when she was just 12 years old. Her mother, an immigrant seamstress from Canton, had been assaulted in Brooklyn, and her young American-born daughter was accompanying her on a confusing trip to a hearing in criminal court.
“All we knew was that we were told to be there on a certain day,” Ling-Cohan recalls. “But no one told us where to go, when to come back. There were no translators. When it was over, we had no idea what had happened. That shaped me. It made me realize how important it is to have legal information.”
Since then she has dedicated a good portion of her career as a lawyer and a judge to helping immigrants and the disadvantaged navigate the complexities of the courts.
After growing up in Chinatown with her mother and father, a laundryman from Guangzhou, Ling-Cohan headed off across the East River to Brooklyn College, where as a student in the turbulent early ’70s, she decided she wanted to “change the world.” On campus, she became active in New York Public Interest Group (NYPIRG) and after graduation attended NYU law school on a full scholarship. As a law student she worked at a legal services program that helped women who were victims of domestic violence.
“Because I could speak Chinese, I often went along to assist if the victim was Chinese,” she says. The work made her aware of the particular problems facing Asian domestic violence victims.
“We had a client who had no place to go,” she recalls. “But most of the shelters were not used to dealing with Asian American clients. There was the issue of language, different foods. It’s very difficult for someone who is already battered to leave and go into a whole unknown and deal with a different cultural situation. It highlighted the need for a center for Asian women.”
A few years later, Ling-Cohan was one of the women who founded the New York Asian Women’s Center, the city’s only non-profit center dedicated to helping Asian victims of domestic abuse.
Upon graduation, she got her first job as an attorney with Legal Services in Bedford-Stuyvessant, Brooklyn, and then worked with a Legal Services project helping mentally-challenged clients. Later, she joined the New York State Attorney General’s consumer fraud protection unit, where her connections in the Chinese community helped her bring scams against immigrants to the attention of fraud investigators. She remembers one case in 1986 where con artists promised immigrants quick access to free public housing if they sent a fee to a P.O. box number. Her office was interested in launching an investigation, but there was some concern among her colleagues that it would be a difficult case to prosecute.
“There was a stereotype that Asians wouldn’t testify,” she said.
When Ling-Cohen started working on the case, searching for potential victims with the help of the local Chinese-language media, even she thought she would be lucky to find even a handful willing to come forward. But, she quickly discovered the opposite was true.
“We had people lined up down the halls waiting to testify at the grand jury hearing,” she recalls. “It shattered the myth that Asians don’t complain.”
A few years later, Ling-Cohan was appointed as a judge to the New York Housing Court. In 1995, she was elected from Chinatown to the New York Civil Court. It marked the first time an APA in New York City had been elected for a public office other than school board. As a judge she has made demystifying the court system for immigrants and others a priority. In the past several years, she has co-authored three books, including one on how to represent oneself in court, and one giving advice to seniors about how to use the court system. She has conducted numerous workshops and outreach forums on law awareness and domestic violence for the APA community.
“I always try to focus on community outreach and education,” she says. “I think that for the Asian community, a lot of times legal information is not channeled to you.”
In her everyday activities on the bench, she says she always strives to maintain an awareness of the special needs of immigrants who appear before her.
“The background of being Chinese and the child of immigrants sensitized me to the need to do something as simple as writing down on a piece of paper their next court date to make sure they understand it,” she says. “Or I stop and explain things for them so that they understand what the next step is. Being in court is scary — even for those who were born in this country.”
If she is elected, Ling-Cohan will become one of two APA justices on the Supreme Court. The other is Randall Eng, who represents Queens. She will represent Judicial District 2, which includes the neighborhoods of Chinatown, the East Village and SoHo.
This race is especially significant since there is only one other elected APA outside the Supreme Court in New York City — City Councilman John Liu of Queens. For Ling-Cohan, reaching the Supreme Court represents a new challenge for herself and a new milestone for New York’s APAs.
“It’s an opportunity to make history for the community,” says Ling-Cohan. “Anytime you are able to shatter a glass ceiling, it’s important.”
Not according to the judge
New York Times February 4, 2005
Judge Rejects New York Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
and MARK J. PRENDERGAST
In a victory for same-sex marriage advocates, a New York state judge in Manhattan ruled today that denying gay couples licenses to marry violates the State Constitution, and she ordered the city to begin issuing licenses in March unless a higher court intervened.
In a 62-page decision, the first in New York State to affirm the rights of gays to marry, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court wrote that New York State's Domestic Relations Law, which dates to the 19th century, is unconstitutional. The law, she wrote, violates gay couples' due process and their rights to equal protection under the law.
She ordered the city clerk's office to begin issuing licenses in 30 days after receiving a copy of her decision, unless the city appeals and obtains a longer stay. The city Law Department said it was reviewing her decision. Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling applies to couples in New York City, although a favorable appellate ruling could broaden its application.
"Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love," Justice Ling-Cohan wrote. "Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."
The suit was filed last year by Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, on behalf of five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York, and advocates of gay rights quickly applauded the judge's ruling.
"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, Susan Sommer, who presented the case, told The Associated Press. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."
In her ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan declared that "the words 'husband,' 'wife,' 'groom' and 'bride,' as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to mean 'spouse,' and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."
The judge likened laws barring same-sex marriages to laws barring mixed-race marriages that endured in some parts of the United States well into the 1960's.
"An instructive lesson can be learned from the history of the anti-miscegenation laws and the court decisions which struck them down as unconstitutional," Justice Ling-Cohan wrote. "The challenges to laws banning whites and nonwhites from marriage demonstrate that the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners."
That seemed to be a reference to one strategy being employed by opponents of same-sex marriage: the passage by individual states of legislation defining marriage as between people of opposite sexes, citing tradition and "natural law."
New York State does not have one of these so-called Defense of Marriage Acts. Some opponents of same-sex marriage are also pressing to amend the United States Constitution to bar same-sex marriages.
Last year, the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, issued an opinion stating that while state law would allow New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states, it did not permit such marriages to be carried out in New York. But he also acknowledged that the state's marriage laws raised "serious legal concerns" that must be resolved by the courts.
Justice Ling-Cohan directed that a copy of her ruling be sent to Mr. Spitzer's office.
The matter will almost certainly be decided by the higher courts in New York, if for no other reason than another state judge recently issued a ruling opposite that of Justice Ling-Cohan's. In December, Justice Joseph C. Teresi of State Supreme Court in Albany ruled that 13 same-sex couples in a lawsuit filed in his court had not been denied their rights to equal protection under the laws, due process or freedom of speech by being thwarted in their attempts to marry in New York State.
A spokesman for Gov. George Pataki, Kevin Quinn, said after learning of Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling, "The governor strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong," according to The AP, adding that "New York's marriage laws are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman."
>>A spokesman for Gov. George Pataki, Kevin Quinn, said after learning of Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling, "The governor strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong," according to The AP, adding that "New York's marriage laws are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman." <<
Applause for Gov. Pataki!
the Article that this post is in reply to is from :
Asian Week.com Nov. 1 - Nov. 7, 2002
Opps! I was wrong about the Conservative Party nomination (the fourth one was the lefty Working Families nomination that I didn't recall correctly).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.