Posted on 07/13/2006 5:39:55 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
LONG ISLAND, NY, July 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The New York State Supreme Court has denied a homosexual couple spousal benefits, despite their being “married” in Canada two years ago, the New York Times reports.
The case was brought forward by Duke. L. Funderburke, who was attempting to obtain medical benefits reserved for married couples from the Uniondale Union Free School District, for his homosexual partner, Bradley Davis.
NY Supreme Court Justice Edward W. McCarthy, however, referred back to last week’s decision by New York’s Appellate Court as the basis for his refusing to extend such benefits to the homosexual couple.
At the time appellate Justice Robert S. Smith demurred from following the treacherous road of judicial activism, stating for the Court, "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature."
Funderburke’s lawyer, however, Alphonso David, argued that the Appellate Court’s decision only forbids same-sex “marriages” from being performed in the state, and does not forbid such “marriages” performed elsewhere to be recognized by the state.
“This decision misapprehended the Court of Appeals decision,” argued David, according to the NY Times. “Our position has always been that same-sex couples cannot get married in New York, and that’s why out of state marriages should be respected.”
Justice McCarthy, however, disagreed, writing "Under current New York law, plaintiff and his partner are not considered spouses and therefore spousal insurance benefits are unavailable to them."
This is not the first time that homosexual couples “married” in Canada have attempted to use their Canadian “marriage” as leverage to force the issue in their own state or country. Two women in Britain presented arguments earlier this year to a U.K. high court that the U.K should recognize their Canadian same-sex “marriage.” In a similar case, three homosexual Israeli couples that were “married” in Canada are now attempting to force the Israeli government to recognize their unions as legitimate marriages.
Makes sense that they won't recognize Canadian homosexual marriage if they don't in that state.
Um, how did the NY Supreme Court make an appellate decision? It's a trial court.
What is the state's highest appellate court?
There is an intermediate Appellate Division in between the County Supreme Courts and the Court of Appeals.
This confuses every first year law student in New York.
Why am I not surprised that the sodomite is a government school teacher?
All he has to do is go to work for Levi Strauss, any other huge corporation, or a University and he'd get free health care for his "partner".
This was more than a desire to get benefits, or else why spend the money for attorneys?
It was a trial balloon to advance homosexual "rights".
I think he's suggesting that the Supreme Court didn't apply the appellate ruling from the prior case correctly. Since they are the lower court, they have to follow decision from the Court of Appeals. (They did, but Funderthighs doesn't fink so.)
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.