Posted on 02/04/2005 5:06:13 PM PST by Former Military Chick
NEW YORK (AP) -- 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. "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 in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York's trial level court.
The couples brought a lawsuit arguing they were denied legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. The judge agreed and said the New York City clerk may not deny a license to any couple solely because the two are of the same sex.
"Under both the federal and New York State constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty" extends to protect marriage, Ling-Cohan wrote.
The ruling will not take effect for at least 30 days. The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."
The judge ordered a copy of her decision sent to the state attorney general, who was not involved in the case. Calls to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office were not immediately returned.
Interactives Laws of the Land: Making Sense of Marriage vs. Civil Unions
Latest News N.Y. Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down Gay-Marriage Amendment Put on Kan. Ballot
Bill to Fix Utah Gay-Marriage Ban Loses
Gay Rights Group Challenging Marriage Ban
Same-Sex Couples in Mass. Tackle Taxes
Kevin Quinn, spokesman for Republican Gov. George Pataki, said, "The governor strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong," adding that "New York's marriage laws are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman."
The ruling applies only in the city, but could extend statewide if upheld by the Court of Appeals in Albany.
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was "disappointed" by the decision. "Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench."
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 in the case, 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.
This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment. Game, Set, and Match.
Exactly what part of the NY constitution (or any other state for that matter) promotes or allows - SPECIFICALLY- gay marriage?
None - it's activist judges who are legislating from the bench.
xactly....hence, you are always right.
Doris Ling-Cohan, now that's a Democratic name if ever I've heard one! A Democratic judicial activist no doubt!
You beat me to the punch!
Yet another reason everybody needs write and call their
elected representatives (congressmen ,and or Senators and
demand the Federal Marriage Amendment be passed to the people immediatly to remove the definition of marriage from the queer lot in black robes.And avoid further divisions in this nation.Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in Holy matrimony.No substitutes-nothing else
can compare And any freaking Mere politician who does NOT
agree does NOT represent me or my interests and I WILL NOT
follow where they wish to lead.(the end thereof is death)
IM a simple guy. So this means the poofters can marry each other. NOT that anything is wrong with that.
It's sure convenient how these cases end up being decided by Clinton appointees.
This ruling has a major flaw. The judge says the gays are being denied the right to be married and that is not true. They are just being denied the right to marry people of the same sex. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish. A ban on same sex marriages should be a no brainer and should never even have to be enacted. The definition of marriage is a union between two people of the opposite sex. This is a liberal judge passing on his prejudices to all the people and not upholding law, but trying to make it. If they appeal this I am sure eventually the ban will be upheld. It violates no constitutional right.
This very same argument could be used to allow polygamous marriage. "If we don't allow polygamists to marry, they are not being treated equally under the law".
Besides, gay people already have the right to marry in all 50 states. Gay people just can't marry each other.
Exactly. It's like what I say in conversation with other on this issue. I and any queer have the same right to marry any person of legal age and of the opposite sex that we desire. Same rights and restrictions apply to both of us.
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.