Posted on 06/11/2004 7:49:15 AM PDT by jude24
A town justice Thursday dismissed a criminal prosecution against the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., who married gay couples without marriage licenses, saying a state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
The ruling from New Paltz Town Justice Jonathan D. Katz marked the first time a New York court has found that the marriage law violates the rights of gay couples. The judge's opinion does not, however, have the effect of invalidating the statute or giving gay couples an immediate opportunity to wed.
"I am familiar with the arguments raised in the cases from other states addressing this issue and I understand the historical, cultural and religious opposition to same-sex marriage, but find that none of the reasons stated in opposition to same-sex marriage is paramount to the equal protection guarantees enshrined in the state and federal constitutions," Katz wrote in People v. West, 04030054.
Katz's ruling comes in the same week as another ruling in a civil case involving New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who married numerous couples in February even though the New Paltz town clerk would not issue them marriage licenses.
In the earlier civil court ruling, County Supreme Court Justice E. Michael Kavanagh said West could not perform marriages without valid licenses and enjoined him from conducting such marriages in the future. Kavanagh did not address the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban.
Katz, who practices law in New Paltz and is one of two part-time town justices, said the equal protection issue raised by the ban invalidated the statute and, by extension, the misdemeanor prosecution against West. "Even if the financial issues could be addressed in some comprehensive way short of allowing same-sex partners to marry, there would still be no emotional substitute for marriage," Katz wrote.
FIRST STEP TOWARD LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE
E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, which represents West, said the ruling was the first step toward legal gay marriage in New York.
"If history is any guide, this is the beginning of an unstoppable trend in New York," Rosenkranz said.
Donald A. Williams, the Ulster County District Attorney, said his office would appeal the ruling.
"Our position was that the mayor cannot defend an independent and willing unlawful act by shielding himself with the rights of others," Williams said. "This prosecution is not about the legality or constitutionality of same-sex marriage; it is about a public official willfully violating the law."
Williams noted the opinion of Justice Kavanagh, who said a mayor could not disregard a law just because he believed it was unconstitutional.
Juanita Scarlett, a spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said the office is reviewing the decision and declined further comment.
In March, Spitzer released a legal memo that found gay couples do not have the right to marry under New York's Domestic Relations Law. But the attorney general acknowledged that the law raised constitutional issues that would ultimately be decided in the courts.
Justice Katz asked Spitzer's office to defend the law as part of West's prosecution, but the attorney general declined to do so. The judge noted that Williams' office did not try to defend the constitutionality of the Domestic Relations Law, either, and said this fact had some bearing on his decision.
"If the state had a legitimate governmental purpose in preventing same-sex couples from marrying either the chief law enforcement officer of Ulster County or of the State of New York could have taken this opportunity to articulate it," Justice Katz wrote.
Katz was appointed to the Town Court in 1995 and was subsequently elected to office. He was last elected, as a Democrat, in 2001 and will face re-election in 2005. He has lived in New Paltz since 1987.
Andrew Kossover, a New Paltz attorney, acted as co-counsel to Rosenkranz.
Just another roadsign marking the Gaystapo attack on our Republic.
Yeah, let's hear the Log Samplin' Republicans issue a press release condemning these activist judges and their unconsitutional legislation from the bench.
Another jurist thinks he's a legislator.
That sums it up better than I could...
Gay marriage advocates say that those who oppose it and claim a "slippery slope" argument that it will lead to polygamy, bigamy, and a host of other forms of marriage are making a false argument and are just making outrageous claims.
They are wrong. It is the gay marriage advocates own arguments for gay marriage based on "equal protection" that will without question lead to these marriages and others. If it is a violation of a gay couples "equal protection" to deny them marriage, how is it not a violation of a others equal protection to deny them marriage as they want it?
My biggest disappointment in the whole gay marriage fiasco in SF was that no poligamists attempted to get a marriage license. What would they have done if a man and 2, 3, or 4 women attempted to get a license and be married? Would they have been turned away? If so, why? If not, why not?
It would have been a great exercise for some poligamists to have tried. Why none did is a question without an answer currently.
The whole matter should be discussed and based on a simple question. Does the government have the legitimate and proper authority to define marriage? If they answer yes, then that is the end of the line for gay marriage until they can get legislation passed granting state sanction of marriage upon gays.
If they answer no, then they have again (with their own argument) shown those talking of a slippery slope to be correct. For if the government does not have the legitimate authority to define marriage, then the other forms of marriage people are warning of (and gays are claiming is rediculous) must be allowed.
Rename the town "New P*tz".
predictable. SCOTUS will have to sort this one out too.
So9
Judge disclares Christianity illegal.....well, maybe not for a few years, but that is the path we are headed down.
Hey, why not? The Constitution is whatever the judges say it is, right?
Preamble to the U.S. ConstitutionIf the Constitution is ordered to promoting the general welfare by securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, doesn't sodomy make a posterity impossible?We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Damn this insanity to hell.
You beat me to it by seconds!...............KA-CHING!!!
Polygamy is a hell of a lot more natural than sodomy. God even tolerated it in the OT. But no society has ever recognized sodomite "marriage." It's a contradiction in terms, among other things.
I think I'll find some little town, population about 87, with an elected town judge. I'll run for office and start playing God myself. There's a whole lotta things I look forward to holding unconstitutional ....
"I think I'll find some little town, population about 87, with an elected town judge. I'll run for office and start playing God myself. There's a whole lotta things I look forward to holding unconstitutional ...."
Actually, it's not a bad idea.
We desperately need to take our country back from judges. They utterly rule the country now, without check, and we let them. Look at this case: The case before him had NOTHING to do with whether banning gay marriage is constitutional. The case before him was about a public official breaking a law that was on the books, period. Yet this two-bit, TOWN JUSTICE goes through that law and establishes some tenuous grasp on another. It matters not what gets passed into law. If it's against the liberal cause, rest assured some judge somewhere will find a way to set it aside.
At some point, someone must stand up and say, SCREW YOU, and enforce the law anyway.
MM
Nope, "gay marriage" is simply a step on the way to the socialist utopia where marriage itself is nonexistent, and children exist only for the purpose of being sexually exploited by adults.
There is a lot of fun to be had here. I figure I could be sworn in at 9. By ten, I'd have arrest warrants out on a couple of dozen international bad guys of the left. By eleven, I'd find that the unborn have a consitutional right to life, outlaw compulsory union dues in politics (which seriously ought to be done, and incidentally bankrupting the democrat party is just icing on the cake), overturn the Federal Elections Act, and order complete school choice on equal protection grounds.
Even with a coffee break and long lunch, I figure I could straighten out the country by about three in the afternoon.
All it would take is to have the petitioners lined up ready to go first thing in the morning. On the precedent of the Florida Supreme Court, even that might not be necessary -- I could just act on my own motion, and cite democrats as to why that's legitimate. Oh, to be a judge ....
So New Yorker's do not need to obey laws this judge doesn't like? How nice.
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.