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.
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.