Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY court rules against gay marriage
AP/Newsday ^ | July 6, 2006 | Staff

Posted on 07/06/2006 6:23:02 AM PDT by veronica

ALBANY -- New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.

The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision rejected arguments from gay and lesbian plaintiffs throughout the state that their inability to get marriage licences in New York violated their constitutional rights.

Judge Robert Smith said New York's marriage law clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman and any change in the law should come from the state Legislature.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: fma; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; marriage; mpa

1 posted on 07/06/2006 6:23:04 AM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: veronica

Is it possible that there's some sanity in New York? This is EXACTLY the type of ruling that every state SC needs to make when these cases are brought forward.


2 posted on 07/06/2006 6:24:33 AM PDT by Antoninus (Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
ok I'm confused, wheres the punch line? Usually the courts include an order to the legistlature to create a new law. Or they find the man/woman marriage law violated their constitutional right to free speech or some such creative interpretation of the law.
3 posted on 07/06/2006 6:27:14 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Has hell frozen over? A court is actually showing restraint?! WOW, let's hope these guys will represent the future of the judicial system in America (but I won't hold my breath).


4 posted on 07/06/2006 6:29:14 AM PDT by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

I think maybe some of these judges are beginning to understand that people have had enough. They are not little gods whose job it is to tell the rest of us how to live.

Backlashes work.


5 posted on 07/06/2006 6:34:38 AM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: veronica

reading the title I assumed the NYT had ruled on this... which caused me to spill on my keybard.. (NYT is the 4th branch of govt. btw)


6 posted on 07/06/2006 6:35:35 AM PDT by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

7 posted on 07/06/2006 6:37:48 AM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: veronica
WOW!! This news worked better than caffeine this morning!!
8 posted on 07/06/2006 6:50:15 AM PDT by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Is it possible that there's some sanity in New York?

More like gutlessness rather than principle. I guarantee they didn't want to do this.

9 posted on 07/06/2006 6:51:37 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica

WOW, we've witnessed a miracle.


10 posted on 07/06/2006 6:51:45 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Bumberg is shedding tears


11 posted on 07/06/2006 6:58:46 AM PDT by italianquaker (Democrats and media can't win elections at least they can win their phony polls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker

"Bumberg is shedding tears"

He'll probably issue a decree that our economy will fail without gay marriage.


12 posted on 07/06/2006 7:04:43 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Maybe we in Massachusetts can trade justices with New York?


13 posted on 07/06/2006 7:07:11 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Actually, if you think about the ramifications, this is right off the liberal's game plan: We now have a state supreme court decision saying "yes" to gay marriage (MA), and a state supreme court saying "no" to gay marriage (NY).

At this point, anyone in NY has an avenue for relief in the Federal Court System since US citizens in MA have a "right" that is not being extended to US citizens in NY. This is how it worked with abortion, and it will thus follow with gay marriage. Roe vs. Wade is being used as the blueprint.

This is why the constitutional amendment is so important to protecting the historical institution of marriage. Let us not forget that "States Rights" died in 1865.


14 posted on 07/06/2006 7:13:05 AM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

15 posted on 07/06/2006 8:09:38 AM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Ya Gotta Love IT! I just wish
they would pinpoint that segment
of "New York's marriage law"
that "clearly limits marriage to
between a man and a woman."

If it's that clear, we ought to
get the exact wording into the
US Constitution, or into the
majority of State Constitutions!

And for the umpteenth time, I
never understand just what
"protections" these gay people
are after when they say they
are being treated differently
than everyone else. Different
by choice or any other means
is DIFFERENT!
Fact: Ms. Burke has a son from
a relationship with a man. She
didn't get pregnant with the aid
of her female "partner." No matter
how she phrases it, her little
family is an artificial one without
a man in its midst! And she can
claim as loudly as she wishes that
her son has "no qualms" about
having two women for parents, no
matter how masculine one of them
may be; until the lad steps up
when he's of age, we'll never
actually know the whole truth
about that. We'll also never
know just how his being "straight"
may affect his mothers' (yeah, both
of them) emotional stability when
gauged by their own choices. But
what if HE becomes Gay, too? Will
his environment be a contributing
factor, or will we hear 'it's in
the DNA'?


16 posted on 07/06/2006 8:11:03 AM PDT by Grendel9 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

homoadvocats are saying this will not stand based on Brown vs. Board of Education.

They are using the immutable trait myth of homosexuality to push that this is a seperate but equal ruling.

They also say they will be able to have the legislature force homoseuxal marriage upon the people when the democrats take office.

IOW democrat party in office=homosexual marriage.


17 posted on 07/06/2006 8:28:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13

I think you have nailed it.


Fools like McCain are trying to pass the buck by saying it is up to the courts and it is too early.

McCain is a fool and in fact is not opposed to homsexual attacks on marriage. He knows the issue is suicide and yet he did not vote for the Marriage amendment TWICE.


18 posted on 07/06/2006 8:34:52 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: veronica

One of two big wins for the good guys today! Hooray!


19 posted on 07/06/2006 4:54:45 PM PDT by FormerLib ("...the past ten years in Kosovo will be replayed here in what some call Aztlan.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson