N.Y. top court rules against gay marriage

Rumple Foreskin

The AH Patriarch
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Posts
11,109
The floor is now open to discuss, fuss, and/or cuss as the case may be.

Rumple Foreskin :cool:

N.Y. top court rules against gay marriage

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
25 minutes ago

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.

Gov. George Pataki's health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office had argued New York law prohibits issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts.

"It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady, who is raising an 11-year-old son with her partner, Tonja Alvis. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors."

The judges declined to follow the lead of high court judges in neighboring Massachusetts, who ruled that same-sex couples in that state have the same right to wed as straight couples.

The four cases decided Thursday were filed two years ago when the Massachusetts decision helped usher in a series of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco.

With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs in the suits, including the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell and his longtime partner.

Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law.

"We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us."

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

Judge Albert Rosenblatt, whose daughter has advocated for same-sex couples in California, did not take part in the decision.

Since the Massachusetts ruling, about a dozen states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, and 19 now outlaw it. There is now a push in Massachusetts for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

A federal lawsuit filed over California's refusal to grant a marriage license to a gay couple reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May. The court, however, sidestepped the question of whether it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, leaving the issue to state courts to decide.
 
In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

I wonder if she'd run away with me to Massachussettes and agree to marry me!
 
I've yet to figure out why it is some people feel threatened. It evades me. Of course, there is the simple fear of "it's different" and the tendency for people to be swayed by the loudest yelling group -- a false majority, as it were.

*sigh*

So we sluff it off on the next generation because too many today won't stand up for it. Bah.
 
Geez, mal, don't you know that if you let Vella and I get married that it's only encouraging folks to run out and petition to marry their dog/cat?
 
lucky-E-leven said:
Geez, mal, don't you know that if you let Vella and I get married that it's only encouraging folks to run out and petition to marry their dog/cat?
Dogs are ugly! But cats on the other hand are cute! :rolleyes:
 
lucky-E-leven said:
Geez, mal, don't you know that if you let Vella and I get married that it's only encouraging folks to run out and petition to marry their dog/cat?

Yeah, that's REALLY going to happen. :rolleyes: If you ask me, some people need to get their heads out of the sand and realize what century it is. We're in the freaking Space Age already. It's time to act like it and stop being such prudes! Then again, maybe it's just that I know my sexuality and am not intimidated by a man tying the knot with another man. Face it, all moral preaching aside, this is homophobic "straight" and/or fundamentalist men who are revolted by 2 men kissing. If it was just lesbianism, they'd be more aroused than disgusted, odds are.
 
malachiteink said:
I've yet to figure out why it is some people feel threatened. It evades me. Of course, there is the simple fear of "it's different" and the tendency for people to be swayed by the loudest yelling group -- a false majority, as it were.

*sigh*

So we sluff it off on the next generation because too many today won't stand up for it. Bah.

Because legalising same sex couples, and allowing them to 'be like everyone else', validates their relationships, giving them equal meaning in the eyes of the law, and equal rights, means that the religious bigots, the discriminatory arseholes won't be able to use them as scapegoats for every wrong under the sun.

We can't have that, now can we. Simply because two people have lived together for 36 years, shared their lives, their troubles, their pains, their grief, raised stable, well-adjusted children of both sexes, doesn't give them the right to have that relationship viewed the same was as a straight coupel who have married and divorced several times, had their traumatised children in therapy for years, and are unable to maintain a longterm relationship.

Dickheads. Stability of relationship has nothing to do with sexuality, its all about personality and character.

I despair of all the buck passing - district to state to central government, back to state.

I'm also very glad Min and I are returning to the UK where we CAN have such a validated and recognised relationship.
 
matriarch said:
I'm also very glad Min and I are returning to the UK where we CAN have such a validated and recognised relationship.

And so are we (Uk residents) very fortunate to have two of the most beautiful and in - love women in our midst.

Come back home soon
:heart:
 
Trinique_Fire said:
I'll put it this way: I'm all for civil unions. Not marriages.
I usually stay clear of the subject because it's so touchy. I don't care either way, but would prefer the idea of civil unions. Not against gay marriage at all, just think it would be easier to change people's hearts and minds slowly rather than hitting them in the face with, "Now it's the law, you must accept it." Let the people who it really matters to have their slip of paper. Come up with something equivelent that gives all the rights to a G/L couple, because that's the most important thing (that no couple gets descriminated against just because of who they love).

Every time I hear the horror stories of G/L couples running into problems because of the lack of established rights, I get frustrated to the point of tears. It's awful that people have to live their lives with added pressure like that (and really sad for us to lose good people like Mat & Min). The argument that marriage is sacred has been turned into a joke by people who get married a half-dozen times anyway. I'm 40 and have never been married. Came close a couple of times, but knew in my heart I didn't find the right one, so I waited. Hasn't always been easy, but I want to get married once and only once.

Problem is, politicians know the best way to win elections is the same as the best way to not get picked on in the school playground . . . point out someone else and attack them. Sad that the mentality of out of control children is the same as what drives our political machine sometimes.
 
Rumple Foreskin said:
N.Y. top court rules against gay marriage .

BOO! *throws rotten eggs and tomatoes*

God damn it, if it makes people happy let them fucking get married! Fuckers! :mad:
 
Where's a huge crowd of people to throw rotten food when you need one? Not usually a fan of mass hysteria and large mobs, but in this case, I'll make an exception. Where are the stocks and pillory? :devil:
 
I have no problem with the idea of gay marriage...

that said, is there an objection to the idea of the civil union in the gay community in general??

Because it seems to me that, like S-Des says, it would be an easier thing to pass at first... and would essentially give the same protection...

it just wouldn't be called "marriage."

am I wrong?
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I have no problem with the idea of gay marriage...

that said, is there an objection to the idea of the civil union in the gay community in general??

Because it seems to me that, like S-Des says, it would be an easier thing to pass at first... and would essentially give the same protection...

it just wouldn't be called "marriage."

am I wrong?

I understand the desire to bridge the gap, but the fundies would find something wrong with that as well. They'll be never pleased. Besides, it's not full equality IMO if gays and lesbians don't have exactly the same rights as the rest of us. Just my two cents. Compromise is not generally a dirty word, but I don't see that kind really placating or appeasing either side of this divide. It's sad, but true. That being so, I prefer to stand with my brothers and sisters in the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community. I have no other choice available.
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I have no problem with the idea of gay marriage...

that said, is there an objection to the idea of the civil union in the gay community in general??

Because it seems to me that, like S-Des says, it would be an easier thing to pass at first... and would essentially give the same protection...

it just wouldn't be called "marriage."

am I wrong?
"Separate, but equal" didn't work so well in past civil rights struggles, did it? Personally, I'll settle for it, but I don't blame anyone who won't.
 
minsue said:
"Separate, but equal" didn't work so well in past civil rights struggles, did it?

It was never equal, but that's a whole other topic.
 
minsue said:
"Separate, but equal" didn't work so well in past civil rights struggles, did it? Personally, I'll settle for it, but I don't blame anyone who won't.


That's kind of how I feel... I'd settle for *something*... although compromise has its down side... :(
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I have no problem with the idea of gay marriage...

that said, is there an objection to the idea of the civil union in the gay community in general??

Because it seems to me that, like S-Des says, it would be an easier thing to pass at first... and would essentially give the same protection...

it just wouldn't be called "marriage."

am I wrong?

I have to agree with the Kitty on this one. I also have no problem with gay marriage and, eventually, I believe it will be commonplace, but probably not in my lifetime. Civil unions are a big step in that direction and, if activists aim too high, there might be a backlash that will cancel all the progress that has been made.

Having said that, I must say that I would look askance on the jurist who said, in effect, "It may be the law, and part of the state constitution, but I don't like it and I think we should change it." Courts, with no responsibility to anybody, making laws is never a good thing.
 
I don't need a court to recognize my relationship with Vella as a marriage.
I do, however, need to know that my family is protected.

Call it whatever the hell you like, because to the couple involved, what matters most is that the person you build a life with has rights and protections that are guaranteed. I'd like to see sexuality removed from the issue entirely, if you want to know the truth. I think some standard of civil unions should be available to any two people that wish to co-exist and depend upon one another in the same way a married man and woman do. I know of elderly siblings, retired, without any other family or income, etc... that choose to live together as their lives wind down. I know of friends in similar situations that have no sexual or intimate ties beyond a friendship so complete in all other aspects that they rely on it above all others. Whom you sleep with should be pulled from the issue entirely. Sometimes there simply is no alternative to cohabitating and depending on one another, regardless of the 'nature' of the relationship.

Note: I'm not suggesting ridiculous tax breaks for anyone and everyone (as I know that would open such an idea to huge amounts of fraud), though that should be something considered down the line. I'm speaking about basic rights and protections here.

~lucky
 
Trinique_Fire said:
I'll put it this way: I'm all for civil unions. Not marriages.
Just out of curiosity, what makes them so different, i.e. one better/worse than the other?
 
lucky-E-leven said:
Call it whatever the hell you like, because to the couple involved, what matters most is that the person you build a life with has rights and protections that are guaranteed. I'd like to see sexuality removed from the issue entirely, if you want to know the truth ..... I'm speaking about basic rights and protections here.

~lucky



*nodding*

That's what I was thinking... :cathappy:
 
lucky-E-leven said:
I don't need a court to recognize my relationship with Vella as a marriage.
I do, however, need to know that my family is protected.

Call it whatever the hell you like, because to the couple involved, what matters most is that the person you build a life with has rights and protections that are guaranteed. I'd like to see sexuality removed from the issue entirely, if you want to know the truth. I think some standard of civil unions should be available to any two people that wish to co-exist and depend upon one another in the same way a married man and woman do. I know of elderly siblings, retired, without any other family or income, etc... that choose to live together as their lives wind down. I know of friends in similar situations that have no sexual or intimate ties beyond a friendship so complete in all other aspects that they rely on it above all others. Whom you sleep with should be pulled from the issue entirely. Sometimes there simply is no alternative to cohabitating and depending on one another, regardless of the 'nature' of the relationship.

Note: I'm not suggesting ridiculous tax breaks for anyone and everyone (as I know that would open such an idea to huge amounts of fraud), though that should be something considered down the line. I'm speaking about basic rights and protections here.

~lucky
That's what I was carefully trying to say. I'm worried about people who are being discriminated against today. The belief that there shouldn't be a difference between straight or gay marriages is something that will take a long time to argue out (and even longer to be commonly accepted). I understand the urge to stand up and scream about the unfairness of it, but since it's the reality let's fix what we can today and try to change the rest tomorrow. I just don't want to hear any more stories about families torn apart because G/L couples don't have the same rights in regards to medical care, children, and other serious issues. I want to see that changed now, today.
 
I find the subject, regrettably, starting to sound played. I am likely not too uncommon in that I care less and less about the issue the more and more its brought up.

Which begs the question, how is it being presented?

If America is getting bored with the issue, which is to say if America is still going to work and eating dinner and paying taxes and driving cars tomorrow and the next day and the next--whether homosexual people get married or not--then something more compelling than "because its right" has to happen, especially when its coming from such a far behind position popularity-wise.

The issue needs re-marketting.
 
Back
Top