filthy disease ridden queers strike again...
Posted on 05/09/2008 7:11:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The State of New York has been ordered to recognize homosexual "marriages" performed in U.S. states and foreign countries where the practice is legal.
New York's highest court – the Court of Appeals – refused to review a lower-court ruling that ordered recognition of so-called foreign "same-sex marriages" performed outside the State of New York. Such unions must now be honored in New York if they were created legally -- for example, in Massachusetts or Canada.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says activist judges are now forcing homosexual marriage on New York citizens. "[T]his is a very sad day for New Yorkers, and we hope this doesn't happen in [other] states across this nation," he comments.
"This is precisely what we feared with the whole onset of homosexual 'marriage' – different states being required, through activist judges ... to recognize [gay] marriages of other states [or] a foreign country."
However, LaBarbera notes the decision could be overturned by lawmakers or appealed to the federal courts. He says pro-family advocates and legislators in the Empire State should do anything they can to stop the forcing of homosexual marriage recognition through "judicial fiat."
"[Judicial activism is] just going to pave the way for even more aggressive rulings in this area," he continues. "So we hope that something can be done about this."
New York is one of only seven states that does not have a state law or constitutional amendment restricting marriage to the union of only one man and one woman. Only one state, Arizona, has tried and failed to pass a Defense of Marriage Act or amendment when the issue was voted on by the public. In more than two dozen other states, however, such initiatives have passed convincingly.
I just don't know what else to say.
If they called for a revolution, nobody would come.
Guess what' going to be shoved up AZ's a$$ in the very near future.
These activist judges need to be removed from office, either by recall (if applicable) or impeachment.
You mean it's not just legal, it's mandatory?
Ping.
Is he saying that activist judges are forcing New Yorkers to marry someone of their own sex? :)
It is funny how Democrats don’t even believe in Democracy.
“It is funny how Democrats don’t even believe in Democracy.”
Orwellian?
yes...24 years by now...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Contempt of courts is my mantra. These men who work in dresses are responsible for all this crap.
filthy disease ridden queers strike again...
Well, now, I just thot they worked for US. And if we don’t like those who ‘work for us,’ isn’t there something about we get to run them out of town?
Good grief! How much farther does it have to go?
LOL
And when a Muzzi shows up with 5 or 6 ‘legal’ wives, what happens?
Wow, who would have ever thought gubberment would mess marriage up. Gubberment has such a great track record with everything else...
Freegards
You know the Mae West line ...
“Are you trying to show contempt for this court?”
“I’m doing my best to hide it.”
That's an old refrain. We know by now that the spineless scumbag politicians simply don't have the guts.
>>>These activist judges need to be removed from office, either by recall (if applicable) or impeachment.
This was the only decision the judges could have reached under the backdrop of current law.
I discussed this last year on a thread regarding the Florida anti-gay marriage campaign
“”Ultimately a waste of time I think. Eventually the matter will be before the Supreme Court where the United States Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will trump the local restrictions.
Florida can choose to set its own restrictions on marriages performed in that jurisdiction, but legal marriages from elsewhere are legally binding on Florida and any other state. To illustrate, consider how different states set varying age requirements for marriage, but the marriage isn’t void when moving to a state that sets a higher age. And interstate travel to marry in a more accommodating state is already common.
You also had the same situation in the old days when divorce was much more limited. People got around this by going to Nevada for a quickie divorce the original restrictive state was forced to recognize.
Absent a federal constitutional amendment, which apparently isn’t going to happen, I really see no other final outcome.””
3 posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:36:21 AM by tlb
nope and i live in the wilderness so my vote doesn't count anyway...
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.