Now that the election is over, you should have expected an onslaught by the liberal judiciary--a last gasp before Bush has his way.
Federal Marriage Amendment is becoming more and more likely. At this pace it will be an active issue in 2006.
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...
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."
How the you know what does this violate the state constitution?
Ah, a subject about which I am somewhat familiar. NY State Supreme Court Justices serve 14 year elected terms. She was first elected to the Supreme Court bench in 2002 I believe. This means we can't touch her at the voting booth until 2016. She serves in the 2nd Judicial District of new york, and since she had all those cross & minor party endorsements, She was either very popular in that particular political subdivision known as the 2nd district, or there was a deal made to not run anyone against her(she ran unopposed)
Can't wait to hear how our dear AG, Eliot Spitzer, feels about this. And he will be asked. He's kept his trap shut so far, trying not to p.o. anyone. What a profile in courage.
Black-robed tyrants at work.
I believe we must change the conversation about "Gay Marriage" and "civil rights" to CHILDREN'S NEEDS and society's RESPONSIBILITY to its future generations.
The institution of marriage exists, first and foremost, for the sake of society; primarily, it enhances the future of society. The very word "matrimony" has as its root the Latin word "mater," meaning mother. Motherhood or parenthood is the ROOT of marriage in very real terms.
Think about it: Why should society license any intimate relationship between two human beings? What benefits does the larger society derive from regulating love relationships? We don't license friendships. We don't license pen-pals, or any sort of personal give-and-take between two people unless their relationship CREATES something (or someone) that society has a stake in.
A society has no larger or more cosmic benefit than to propagate itself. Likewise, a society has no larger or more far-reaching responsibility than to protect its offspring. By so doing, the society is protecting its own future. By failing to do so, a society is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
Children need the guidance and love of both a male and a female parent. Sociological research has established this self-evident fact, so nobody can rationally deny it. The only argument gay rights activists can offer is that there are plenty of bad heterosexual parents, or missing parents, etc. That is true but it does not change the fact that society has a responsibility to protect children and uphold a standard, no matter how many people fail to live up to that standard.
We must work to change the dialogue about gay marriage from one of adult's civil rights to that of children's NEEDS and society's RESPONSIBILITIES, not only to the children of today but to the future of the society itself.
My slogan is, "Children's needs trump adult 'rights' every time."
We cannot allow homosexual love relationships to be elevated to the same social status as heterosexual ones, not if we value our future.
"Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples in the case, ..... have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter."
Can someone explain how that can happen???
(Somebody wasn't being strictly lesbian, obviously!)