Quote :

"N.Y. Court Rejects Gay Marriage POSTED: 9:07 am EDT July 6, 2006 UPDATED: 6:08 pm EDT July 6, 2006 Email This Story | Print This Story ALBANY, N.Y. -- 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. # Read Full Text Of Court Decision # Quotes: Reactions To Gay Marriage Ruling 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 should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. "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. The New York ruling is part of an evolving mosaic on the volatile issue nationwide. Georgia's top court reinstated that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday and high courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts. But 45 states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right" since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition." "It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors." Burke and her partner of seven years, Tonja Alvis, are raising her 11-year-old son. 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. "I am satisfied that today's decision by the state's highest court to uphold our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is the right one," Pataki, a Republican, said in a statement. "I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage." 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 spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco. In New York, the mayor of the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz married about two dozen gay couples in February 2004. 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 -- Assemblyman Daniel 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. She 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. "This state has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the court today retreats from that proud tradition," she wrote. "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." Attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued on behalf of 13 couples in one of the cases, said the court's decision leaves her clients with nowhere to go but the Legislature. Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group, said his organization would immediately begin a campaign to press Albany to pass a gay marriage bill in 2007. Spitzer, a Democrat leading in recent polls in the governor's race, has said he favors legalizing gay marriage. Judge Albert Rosenblatt, whose daughter has advocated for same-sex couples in California, did not take part in the decision."

http://www.wnbc.com/news/9475960/detail.html

Wow, NY of all places. I'm a little shocked, but that could just be my n00bish-ness coming through.
Can't say that I disagree with the first 2 bolded parts, but the last bold part floored me! What a stupid reason to give! Of COURSE it's not "rooted in national history"; We've FORBIDDEN IT for so fucking long. That's like saying that civil rights shouldn't be implented in the 60s and 70s because there's no history of civil rights in the US.

Jeez...

7/7/2006 9:53:04 AM

You missed some bolding:

Quote :

"The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples"

Also,

Quote :

"there's no history of civil rights in the US."

Please read the Constitution.

7/7/2006 10:16:54 AM

i left out the bolding on that one part because it wasn't part of my point.

and, you know what I mean by "civil rights." besides, your argument of "read the Constitution" could also apply to this case as well, if you want to be that nitpicky.

there's also a part of me that cringes a little when a court says "we haven't done it like that before, so what we are currently doing is Constitutional..."

7/7/2006 10:26:51 AM

The court said that the state had a legitimate reason to regulate marriage => if you want to change the regulation, talk to the legislature. That shouldn't be surprising.

Courts cite precedence all the time.

7/7/2006 10:43:10 AM

Quote :

"your argument of "read the Constitution" could also apply to this case as well, if you want to be that nitpicky."

No it can't. The constitution doesn't say anything about gay dudes getting married. Maybe you should read it one more time. What it does do it outline the reach of our three branches of government.

"I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage."

The ACLU took this to the courts because they thought they could push some bullshit through that didn't belong in the judicial to begin with. We elect a legislature for a reason.

7/7/2006 10:46:11 AM

the Constitution also says nothing about blacks deserving the same rights as whites. And any argument you try to make about it saying so (aside from specific ammendments targeted for blacks) would be equally valid for the case of gay marraige.

but really, the point about the Constitution is not really important.

What I think is hilarious is that the court said, in addition to the other things, that because gays haven't historically been marrying that there is no reason to allow them to marry now.

7/7/2006 11:15:36 AM

Quote :

"What a stupid reason to give! Of COURSE it's not "rooted in national history"; "

That's the legal test of whether something is a "fundamental right" - if it is deeply rooted in history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

7/7/2006 2:02:37 PM

yay!!

7/7/2006 2:06:34 PM

^!

7/7/2006 2:37:13 PM

Quote :

"That's the legal test of whether something is a "fundamental right" - if it is deeply rooted in history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

well, they sure did leave that part out, didn't they?

7/7/2006 3:02:51 PM

The problem here is that they (gay marriage rights vocals) are trying to make it so they can be "Married" and call it that. Marriage is a union between man and woman. Marriage was defined by the bible, and thought religion is usually untied to law, it's been there so long... who's going to fight it.

The solution that may have suggested and were scoffed at were to create a new title called "Union" or "Joining" that would adequately describe same sex 'marriage'. This would eliminate one of the big arguements that many people have with calling it a marriage, myself included. I'm not against same sex couples unifying themselves in a ceremony and being able to get all the rights and tax benifits that married couples do, but I am against calling it something that has significant meaning (union of man and woman) to a vast majority of the world.

7/7/2006 4:33:34 PM

Is it just me, or does Raige's argument sound a lot like "I didn't call you a nigger, I called you a nigga"? They're not splitting hairs over wording. The difference between marriage and civil union is the connotation of sacrament and ordination. Either you recognize the validity of a same sex couple's mutual love or you don't. It's not "marriage" and "marriage-lite," it's not fucking "marriage" and "quasi-marriage." Paying lip service to same-sex love by giving it "a word of its own" is not only insulting to homosexuals, it also dilutes the significance of the very concept of the sacrament of marriage. To me, that suggests that opponents of gay marriage don't truly value marriage--they're just trying to keep the queers down.

[Edited on July 7, 2006 at 4:54 PM. Reason : P.S. "Who's going to fight it," you spineless fucking coward? Anyone with sense.]

7/7/2006 4:53:10 PM

I support civil unions myself. Marriage has a religious rooting and should continue to be between one man and one woman.

I don't know how I feel about polygamous civil unions though...I'm still sorting that one out.

7/7/2006 4:57:35 PM

i don't want gay marriage. union. joining. whatever you want to call it.

7/7/2006 4:58:19 PM

And what about religions whose concepts of marriage are rooted in same-sex couples? You're just dodging the question: Do you consider same-sex love equal to heterosexual love?

7/7/2006 4:58:37 PM

I'm not dodging the question. I don't
Now you answer this: Is a man's love for a 12 year old boy not equal to a man's love for another woman? Is a man's love for three women not equal to a man's love for one woman? Is a man's love for a dog (tree, horse, etc) not equal to a man's love for a woman?

See, I can do it too but with couples/groups you don't find acceptable.

7/7/2006 5:01:27 PM

BTW, find me a religion rooted in same-sex relationships and I'll find you one that didn't last long.

7/7/2006 5:01:57 PM

You're presuming an awful lot about what I find acceptable. But you're also talking about something completely different. Cet. par., are you telling me that a mere difference in biological sex is enough to "legitimize" a relationship?

7/7/2006 5:04:42 PM

Yes. Biologically as well as socially

7/7/2006 5:05:14 PM

And how is polygamy any different?

7/7/2006 5:07:17 PM

You're out of your mind and probably don't even know any gay couples.

7/7/2006 5:07:29 PM

Nice, I like it when you can't find anything better than to attack me.

I do know gay couples. But even if I didn't, that wouldn't be a valid argument at all.
I don't know any Koreans and I think they deserve equal rights.
You get back to me when you come up with any actual answers to the question at hand.

7/7/2006 5:10:15 PM

You're telling me that there's a qualitative difference in the love two human beings feel for each other based on whether they happen to be of the same sex. That's fucking ludicrous.

7/7/2006 5:11:48 PM

You're telling me age makes a difference? Or number of participants?

How are those any different than sex?

PS, I like the italics trick. Now I appear informed and intelligent, and also indignant

[Edited on July 7, 2006 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2006 5:13:28 PM

And by the way, I'm not saying there is a difference in the love that they feel. I'm saying there is a difference in the legal and social acceptability

7/7/2006 5:17:29 PM

seriously, if you're trying to argue against gay marriage it's much easier to just use religious dogma as the basis for your claims- That's pretty much what the rest of the country does and it seems to be working.

7/7/2006 6:59:02 PM

Quote :

"They're not splitting hairs over wording. The difference between marriage and civil union is the connotation of sacrament and ordination."

Dumb question, Frosh, but who can "ordain" a marraige? I'll give you a big hint: it's not the US gov't.

If gays want the religious connotation of marraige and they want to achieve it via our laws, then fuck them. They can go rot in a fucking hole in the ground if that's what they want, because I'll be fucking DAMNED if the gov't is going to tell my church that it has to recognize the "sanctity" of a gay marraige.

The only thing the gov't can give to gays is the legal rights that accompany marraige, and that's it! That's all the gov't should give them. If gays want to get pissy over the fucking wording, then tell them to take it up w/ the church or with God or Buddha or Allah or whoever.

7/7/2006 8:41:25 PM

I smell another schism a brewin' in Christianityland

7/7/2006 9:42:03 PM

Damn those activist judges.

7/7/2006 9:55:40 PM

Quote :

"That's the legal test of whether something is a "fundamental right" - if it is deeply rooted in history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

So in other words, the legal test is whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal and whether he likes gay people. Thanks for the clarification.

I like how you just pretend (by omission) that there's no major ambiguity in that "legal test," particularly in what one views as "deep" versus shallow rooting, what our history and traditions are, in particular, and let's not even get started on "ordered liberty."

(one supposes that slavery fits neatly into the concept of ordered liberty, since it hierarchically ordered white over black -- how else to explain its persistence in the wake of such a "legal test?")

7/8/2006 7:22:39 AM

Quote :

"I support civil unions myself. Marriage has a religious rooting and should continue to be between one man and one woman."

Pardon my bluntness, but that is a ridiculously stupid position. We are talking about a bureaucratic facility provided by the U.S. government, and it has NOTHING to do with religion.

I can get "married" legally in any state without talking to a pastor, or setting foot in a church of any sort. The legal institution applies equally to all religions and non-religions, regardless of faith, demonination, or lack thereof.

Is this not just an unbelievably obvious point? Have you never been to Las Vegas before?

Associating legal marriage with religious marriage is pointless. It's like comparing taxes to charity. It makes just absolutely no sense whatsoever. And therefore, carving out civil unions makes even less sense.

Whenever I hear about civil unions, I cringe. They're this generation's water fountains for the coloreds. I'd love to know since when "Separate but Equal" was a valid doctrine and when we started believing it again.

As to the New York court's ruling, it's not too surprising. It's usual "I sit on the court, I don't have a real job, so why rock the boat" decision-making that I expect from professional judges. Let's face it: if you're a state Supreme Court judge, and you rule in favor of gay marriage, well then you can forget about any form of future career advancement.

And that's being charitable; it's most certainly discounting the ideological bents that lead to such poor decision-making. One assumes that these judges, like the above poster, have themselves never been to Las Vegas to see the "deeply-rooted tradition of marriage" at work.

7/8/2006 7:40:22 AM

that shits just pretty gay

7/8/2006 8:44:55 AM

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

If the Legislature has the right to prevent me from draining my swampland then they damn sure have the right to refuse you a piece of paper declaring you "married."

7/8/2006 8:48:50 AM

Actually I have been to a Las Vegas wedding as a guest.

The point your making comparing the treatment of gays to the treatment of blacks isn't valid until you give me the fundamental difference that makes being gay different (and better) than being a polyamorous person or (go on and shit yourself when I say it) a pedophile. Until I am comfortable with why gay people deserve a right to their marriage and we should shut out the "love" in polygamy and "age-differenced" relationships, I cannot support gay marriage.

I appreciate your point in their being only a minute difference between the wording of marriage and civil unions. You are correct, but being a libertarian, I support gay people's rights to practice their method of love and they should have all the legal rights that accompany that. However, even if it isn't practiced this way today, marriage is rooted in religion. It was not invented by the US government. I guess I would, as you suggested, like to make a difference between a religiously sanctioned marriage and a legally sanctioned marriage. That probably is a better position than the one I had to begin with.

However, I still would like a decent answer to the difference between that and incestual, polygamous, and pedophilic love that cause them to be somehow less valid than homosexuality or heterosexuality in that regard. That would make me feel better by having a more consistent viewpoint.

7/8/2006 12:03:35 PM

Quote :

"Pardon my bluntness, but that is a ridiculously stupid position. We are talking about a bureaucratic facility provided by the U.S. government, and it has NOTHING to do with religion."

that is quite possibly the DUMBEST statement in the history of the soap box. And I am including salisburyb0t in my assertion.

marraige has practically everything to do with religion. the desecration of marraige that you cite as being why marraige is a gov't institution is precisely due to the gov't's relationship to the institution. Government has cheapened the religious meaning and implication of marraige by making it an easy thing to get out of and to be able to do so for little to no reason.

Hell, a whole fucking DENOMINATION of a religion was started due to squabbling over marraige. Seriously. Never post again until you pull your head out of your ass.

7/8/2006 12:30:22 PM

Quote :

"The point your making comparing the treatment of gays to the treatment of blacks isn't valid until you give me the fundamental difference that makes being gay different (and better) than being a polyamorous person or (go on and shit yourself when I say it) a pedophile."

Children aren't consenting adults? The law treats minors as a very different class of individual, with very different rights.

I'm personally not opposed to legalized polygamy; the restrictions on it are quite ludicrous and basically amount to religious and social discrimination under the law.

Quote :

"However, even if it isn't practiced this way today, marriage is rooted in religion. It was not invented by the US government."

The legal institution of marriage very well was invented by the US Government, it is a creature of multitudinous legislation and stare decisis. If you believe legal marriage is rooted in religion, you must logically also believe the no-fault divorces that accompany it are as well. After all, they are the flip side of the same coin.

Quote :

"However, I still would like a decent answer to the difference between that and incestual, polygamous, and pedophilic love that cause them to be somehow less valid than homosexuality or heterosexuality in that regard."

Children are not consenting adults. They are treated specially under the law. They are not capable of making decisions on their own.

Incest is generally a subversive relationship. It leverages the familial ties that bind to sexual ends.

Homosexuality is simply the result of two consenting adults' mutual desires to be together. In this regard its only difference from heterosexual love is that of gender. Pedophilia and incest vary on several axes: maturity, both physical and mental, subversiveness, and competence to act under the law.

As to polygamy, I don't have any qualms with it. If a consenting adult chooses to enter into a polygamous relationship with another consenting adult, then I see no reason to ban it. Why you, as a "libertarian," would, is beyond me.

7/8/2006 10:06:02 PM

Quote :

"Government has cheapened the religious meaning and implication of marraige by making it an easy thing to get out of and to be able to do so for little to no reason."

What are you on dude. How can government cheapen marriage when its the sole enforcer of any contract to begin with? Without government policy, marriage would have no binding outside the will of the two entering.

7/8/2006 10:19:37 PM

I'm done arguing about this topic.

LET THE GAYS BE MARRIED! IF YOU DON'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, THEN DON'T MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX!

7/8/2006 11:38:02 PM

If you don't like rape, then don't commit rape. That's just as silly as your statement.

Quote :

" "That's the legal test of whether something is a "fundamental right" - if it is deeply rooted in history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." well, they sure did leave that part out, didn't they?"

I don't think anyone would even bother to argue that gay marriage is something that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. I will look at the briefs submitted to the Court, but I really doubt the plaintiff even argued that. (And of course, that is the federal test - if the Court was ruling according to the STATE Constitution they might be using a separate test which only consists of the first prong.)

Quote :

"Either you recognize the validity of a same sex couple's mutual love or you don't."

It has nothing to do with recognizing validity of someone's love. I cannot say whether someone's love is valid or not. All I can say is that, valid or not, it is not marriage. It doesn't matter whether their love is different or not - a person's feelings for someone else are not really subject to judgment. But we are able to objectively judge whether a particular relationship fits the definition of marriage or not.

Quote :

"So in other words, the legal test is whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal and whether he likes gay people. Thanks for the clarification. I like how you just pretend (by omission) that there's no major ambiguity in that "legal test," particularly in what one views as "deep" versus shallow rooting, what our history and traditions are, in particular, and let's not even get started on "ordered liberty.""

Pretty much. The way Consitutional law works is that judges have, over the years, set up "tests" which basically give them the right to do whatever they want - and in the rare occasion that a "test" does not appear to fit the result they want, they just change the test. I'm certainly not saying this is good - clearly my posts through the years show that I am a great opponent of these type of subjective tests.

BUT - You don't hear any liberals whining about the ambiguity of judicial "tests" when it benefits them (Lemon test, undue buden test), so you have to kind of take the good with the bad.

PS - I'm going to Vegas in a few months. I won't get married though. I'm putting everything on the first third on the roulette wheel.

7/10/2006 1:46:42 PM

i doubt Ratzinger appreciates you gambling

7/10/2006 2:10:56 PM

hahah

homosexuality is the moral equivalent of rape

clearly

7/10/2006 2:15:49 PM

Who said it was the moral equivalent? I am attacking her major premise, not her minor premise.

^^ I won $50 on his election.

7/10/2006 2:20:09 PM

except gay marriage doesn't attack anyone. the comparison is ridiculously stupid.

7/10/2006 2:22:02 PM

Who said it was a comparison? I'm attacking the logic of the statement itself, regardless of the particular facts to which it applies. I am saying that the basic statement itself (the major premise) is illogical, regardless of the particular facts (the minor premise).

7/10/2006 2:23:51 PM

explain how allowing gay marriage would affect you (or anyone else not directly involved in the marriage).


and i can play the same game:

if you don't like pineapple, don't eat pineapple.

see, that logic is completely sound.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/10/2006 2:24:57 PM

How does fucking a horse affect me or any other person?

7/10/2006 2:27:43 PM

All legal issues are solvable a priori!

7/10/2006 2:31:18 PM

^^ok. i'll play your game too:

marriage promotes a monogamous relationship and gives credibility to an entire population of people. it's been shown time after time that people in monogamous relationships have many psychological and health benefits.

not to mention, it may reduce in promiscuous relationships which could result in a spread of disease.

that is a positive from gay marriage to the greater society.

and honestly i don't care what you do with a consenting adult. animals and children on the other hand, don't have a real choice in the matter usually (or aren't of sound enough mind to make a reasoned decision).

but really, please tell me we're not comparing pedophilia and bestiality with homosexuality, because that is really insulting.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/10/2006 2:32:07 PM

Pedophilia = Homosexuality is a common reference drawn by religious idiots, and bigots of other persuasions who haven't passed Knowing What the Fuck You're Talking About 101.

7/10/2006 2:34:24 PM

We need a law banning the sale of pineapples.

I always get a canker sore when I eat too much.

VICTIMLESS MY FOOT!

7/10/2006 2:40:34 PM