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

Skip to comments.

NY must recognize homosexual 'marriages'
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2008 | Jeff Johnson

Posted on 05/09/2008 7:11:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: tlb

That’s why it’s important to have more conservative justices that understand the folly of “same sex” marriages.


21 posted on 05/10/2008 5:15:00 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Michael Steele for VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
refused to review a lower-court ruling

It would have been helpful if the author of this story had cited the case.

22 posted on 05/10/2008 5:21:15 AM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert

>>>That’s why it’s important to have more conservative justices that understand the folly of “same sex” marriages.

Immaterial if you want justices who follow the constitution instead of rewriting it. “Full Faith and Credit” is inextricable from such issues. A justice doing his duty honestly MUST honor and enforce it just as the NY judges did. The precedents go back to the first days of the republic and are too numerous to ignore.

Again the only way past the FF&C issue is the federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. And this will never get past the senate.


23 posted on 05/10/2008 6:10:48 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All
How curious that this would break on Friday, when Friday was the first time in 4 years here that I actually saw one colorfully dressed professional male walk another to the corner and give him a "have a nice day" peck.

Like your typical muslim kneeling in public (I've seen more of those here than the other), there is an unmistakeable sense that the performance is just that: a performance, done for effect. That sort of motivation dies out when its audience yawns and loses interest.

This little faction of misfits isn't quite as ubiquitous as it wants you to believe.

24 posted on 05/10/2008 6:39:30 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csvset
It would have been helpful if the author of this story had cited the case.

Yes. In fact, the entire story has a bit of an unreal feel about it.

25 posted on 05/10/2008 6:40:21 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: csvset
There's a little more reported in the Christian Post (which I'd never heard of) and by WETM. Apparently, the two live in Rochester, but were "married" in Canada, so I'm not sure how much "full faith and credit" is responsible.
26 posted on 05/10/2008 9:29:27 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
New York's constitution needs to be revised in some manner to prohibit rule by one-man dictat.

Possibly they could put a clause in there that would make a judge, governor or other public official who attempted to rule this way an "outlaw" subject to punishment by any citizen at any time.

27 posted on 05/10/2008 9:38:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Clintonfatigued; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

28 posted on 05/10/2008 10:07:05 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... my beliefs call for, honor your

FATHER and MOTHER.

Not honor Mother and Mother or a “father” pretending to be a “mother”. Too bad - violates my Christian beliefs.


29 posted on 05/10/2008 10:26:24 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop
IT needs to be settled in the United States Supreme Court.

It's a sad day, that people lack common sense and force perversion on everyone. It's no longer “tolerance”. It's FORCED acceptance.

30 posted on 05/10/2008 10:28:08 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: csvset

The highest court in New York state had previously ruled against same sex marriage in New York. But now, in this case, they are saying that the state must recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Isn’t that contradictory?

Maybe somebody knows exactly when that happened, but New York’s highest court ruled against a lower court judge in New York City who had ruled for same sex marriage. So how the heck can the court, in effect, overrule their previous ruling?


31 posted on 05/10/2008 12:43:52 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
This little faction of misfits isn't quite as ubiquitous as it wants you to believe.

But they're far more politically and otherwise active than the general public. That's why they get their way so often.

32 posted on 05/10/2008 1:15:15 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (To the liberal, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make. --FReeper popdonnelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Judicial tyranny rears its ugly head again. Allow the people to vote and this homo cr@p never gets anywhere.


33 posted on 05/10/2008 5:33:49 PM PDT by Antoninus (Siblings are the greatest gift parents give their children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Absent a federal constitutional amendment, which apparently isn’t going to happen, I really see no other final outcome.”

Which is exactly why I've been calling for a constitutional marriage amendment since this BS first started. Those "conservatives" who oppose the federal amendment are not conservatives at all. They're fools, cowards, or crypto-homo shills.
34 posted on 05/10/2008 5:39:31 PM PDT by Antoninus (Siblings are the greatest gift parents give their children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I’d just submit an amendment exempting recognition of marriages performed in other states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Federal Government has too much power as it is without usurping marriage law from the states, and I don’t fancy myself a fool, a coward, or a crypto-homo-whatever.

But even this discussion should be irrelevant, because, as another FReeper said on this thread, the couple in question was apparently married in Canada, and the Full Faith and Credit clause simply refers to the several states, IIRC.

Furthermore, things such as the Defense of Marriage Act were predicated on the idea that there was a public policy exception, or some such, carved out in law from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but that could be on legally shaky ground.


35 posted on 05/10/2008 5:47:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (To the liberal, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make. --FReeper popdonnelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
But they're far more politically and otherwise active than the general public. That's why they get their way so often.

Agreed. Their unholy alliance with the media (all media)leverages their message.

But, as with subprimes, leverage works two ways with equal power.

36 posted on 05/10/2008 7:56:47 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Would “Full Faith and Credit” apply if a Muslim brough over his six wives? I doubt it. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court does NOT have to buy into a perverted agenda.


37 posted on 05/11/2008 9:23:17 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Michael Steele for VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

More proof a Federal Marriage Amendment is needed.

Of course McCain is essentially FOR homosexual marriage.


38 posted on 05/11/2008 10:19:44 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Time for a Federal Amendment.


39 posted on 05/12/2008 8:50:12 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (Enlarging my carbon footprint one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

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