Posted on 02/01/2008 5:19:34 PM PST by jmyrlefuller
An appeals court has ruled that a gay couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge's ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee's lesbian partner.
Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005, arguing that it granted benefits to heterosexual married couples but denied them to Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden.
The couple formalized their relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001 and were married in Canada in 2004.
The college refused to add Golden to the health care benefits because its contract with the Civil Service Employees Association did not address benefits for same-sex partners. Since then, the contract has been enhanced to extend benefits to an employee's domestic partner.
State Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway dismissed Martinez's lawsuit in August 2006, saying that the state does not recognize same-sex marriages. The state Legislature "currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman," he wrote.
The appellate judges disagreed, determining that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."
The New York Civil Liberties Union called Friday's ruling a victory for families, justice and human rights.
"Congratulations to all same-sex couples validly married outside of New York state," said Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Now we need to work toward a New York where you don't have to cross state or country lines to get married."
Yo Canada, keep your freaks you marry up there and this won’t be a problem.
I really do see a CSA in the future,,
Recognized as what?
I am gonna be sick.
Perverted.
John McCain in his Vanity Fair interview last year, SPECIFICALLY STATED he did not care if homosexual based marriage was legal.
Remember this on Tuesday.
Of course the MSM will not report this until WEDNESDAY.
Except there are states they can get married in also. This court has actually decreed same sex marriage by judicial activism. Those who think we don't need a constitutional amendment are just wrong. We have out of control courts.
If gay people choose to be domestic partners, fine. But simply call it something else, and let the new word earn its own place of honor in society.
When nut cases like these arise, I wish they could be heard in a special court and under sharia law.
Homosexual agenda (((ping)))
Why?
It's always the taxpayer's money that get's spent on these rulings. Isn't it? Let's see about $1000 a month for the next 20 or thirty years. Even if they divorce! If it's like California all public employee health care plans are top $$$. IMHO it's a quid pro quo between the politicians and the insurance companies.
Is everyone here still willing to sit out this Nov. to teach the party a lesson? We did that in ‘06. Only difference this tIme, the Dems. will have carte blanche from the WH down.
I am watching in full color, the death of my nation and it makes me physically ill.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME IN HISTORY TO TEACH THE PARTY A LESSON. THIS IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OLD. WE ARE NOW FIGHTING GOD-LESS SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!
I would like to see a constitutional amendment concerning the definition of marriage for two reasons. First, because it evidently needs defining if the courts can’t quite comprehend this topic. And second, this social engineering by ultraliberals in academia and the judiciary is not going to slow down or stop until the vast majority makes it clear by dint of constitutional amendments that we have had enough of this nonsense and will amend the document every time in the future that their peculiar initiatives and rulings upset us. Call it the tyranny of the majority if you will, but it sure beats the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the judiciary we have at work right now tearing down this great nation.
I would like to see a constitutional amendment concerning the definition of marriage for two reasons. First, because it evidently needs defining if the courts can’t quite comprehend to topic. And second, this social engineering by ultraliberals in academia and the judiciary is not going to slow down or stop until the vast majority makes it clear by dint of constitutional amendments that we have had enough of this nonsense and will amend the document every time in the future that their peculiar initiatives and rulings upset us. Call it the tyranny of the majority if you will, but it sure beats the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the judiciary we have at work right now tearing down this great nation.
How is this possible?
My question is this : The state supreme court of the state of New York has already ruled on this issue. They ruled that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They ruled that the marriage laws that limit marriage to 1 man and 1 woman were not discriminatory.
That was the state Supreme Court of New York that ruled that way, I think it was last year or a couple of years ago. Somebody can look it up. So, considering that New York’s highest court has already ruled, how can a lower court pursue it from a different angle (i.e. Canada marriage) and rule in favor of same-sex marriage? can anybody explain this?
A worthless piece of paper. New York has to obey Canadian laws now?
Let’s hope so. This would be one of the best possible outcomes of the slope we are currently following.
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.