Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 02-04-2005, 01:56 PM

Not entirely unexpected, but still big, big news:

N.Y. Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down

Quote:

NEW YORK - A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.

Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that "delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers."

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York's trial level court.

The couples brought a lawsuit arguing they were denied legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. The judge agreed and said the New York City clerk may not deny a license to any couple solely because the two are of the same sex.

"Under both the federal and New York State constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty" extends to protect marriage," Ling-Cohan wrote.

The ruling will not take effect for at least 30 days. The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."

The judge ordered a copy of her decision sent to the state attorney general, who was not involved in the case. Calls to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office were not immediately returned.

The ruling applies only in the city, but could extend statewide if upheld by the Court of Appeals in Albany.

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was "disappointed" by the decision. "Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench."

Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples in the case, said they were thrilled by the ruling and believed it would offer their family increased legal protection. They have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter.

"We're just overjoyed," said Shain. "We didn't think it would ever happen.

Kennedy said she wants to marry Shain as soon as possible. "I can't wait," she said. "We went to buy a (marriage) license in March 2004 and couldn't get it. That's what started this whole thing."

The judge noted that one plaintiff in the case, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.

Edited to add link to another article:

New York court rules in favor of same-sex marriage

Foxfire · 02-04-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench.

*gasp* The standard, plastic-wrapped conservative response contained the phrases "activist judge" and "legislating from the bench"? I'm shocked! When will they learn that repetition ad infinitum does not a valid argument make?

Kudos to the evil communist judge in question, though. A ruling like that takes a lot of... erm... ovaries in a country like this. :thumbs:

jayh · 02-04-2005, 03:36 PM

While the judgement certainly seems fair, I fear that the backlash will more than negate the positive. Even though I agree with the spirit of the decision, it's hard to deflect the charges of 'activist' (ordering the words husband and wife be replaced by spouse, and all pronouns replaced accordingly) which will have negative reprecussions.

simian · 02-04-2005, 03:42 PM

I love the final paragraph of the article. Perhaps the press is finally casting the denial of marriage in the correct historical light, not just the "yuck" factor. "The strait white man's fantasy fulfillment initiate" as the Daily show would term the pro-gay gay marriage ammentment.

Simian

Loren Pechtel · 02-04-2005, 03:43 PM

Yeah, the various DOMAs haven't bothered me because I think the problem is going to be solved through the courts, not the legislature, anyway. Only a federal constitutional amendmant would have the teeth to matter.

Activist judge: A judge who expects the legislature to obey the Constitution.

Little Sister · 02-04-2005, 03:53 PM

Backlash makes me nervous too. Currently and specifically I'm worried about this giving heat to the new attempts at a Constitutional Amendment recently Sponsored by Sen Wayne Allard. Ugh. That one has an evil little blurb that also makes it against the law to recognize the "legal incidents" of marriage. If that one passes, there goes my wife's medical and dental benefits, and our domestic partnership.

MrDarwin · 02-04-2005, 06:05 PM

They can talk about "activist judges" all they want but sooner or later, don't people start to wonder why judge after judge after judge--at all judicial levels, in municipalities and states all across the country--has been striking down these marriage bans???

atechnie · 02-04-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was "disappointed" by the decision. "Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench."

I find it ironic that whenever judges rule in favor of gay rights or things like that, they're activist judges. But if judges rule against abortion, they aren't activist judges - they're "interpreting the Constitution strictly."

-atechnie

Loren Pechtel · 02-04-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDarwin

They can talk about "activist judges" all they want but sooner or later, don't people start to wonder why judge after judge after judge--at all judicial levels, in municipalities and states all across the country--has been striking down these marriage bans???

Because dem judges have forgotten that the Bible is supposed to be above the Constitution!

simian · 02-05-2005, 04:47 AM

I for one say screw the backlash. If social issues are not pushed, they will never move forward. As I see it, either you can let the status quo remain, perhaps changing very slowly over the course of decades, or you can push for rights, let the bigots get pissed off and be in a much better situation within a decade or two, and the public begins to accept and embrace the human rights of the oppressed within a decade or so.

Simian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2005, 03:36 PM	#3
jayh Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 4,606	While the judgement certainly seems fair, I fear that the backlash will more than negate the positive. Even though I agree with the spirit of the decision, it's hard to deflect the charges of 'activist' (ordering the words husband and wife be replaced by spouse, and all pronouns replaced accordingly) which will have negative reprecussions.

02-04-2005, 03:42 PM	#4
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	I love the final paragraph of the article. Perhaps the press is finally casting the denial of marriage in the correct historical light, not just the "yuck" factor. "The strait white man's fantasy fulfillment initiate" as the Daily show would term the pro-gay gay marriage ammentment. Simian

02-04-2005, 03:43 PM	#5
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Yeah, the various DOMAs haven't bothered me because I think the problem is going to be solved through the courts, not the legislature, anyway. Only a federal constitutional amendmant would have the teeth to matter. Activist judge: A judge who expects the legislature to obey the Constitution.

02-04-2005, 03:53 PM	#6
Little Sister Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Oregon Posts: 534	Backlash makes me nervous too. Currently and specifically I'm worried about this giving heat to the new attempts at a Constitutional Amendment recently Sponsored by Sen Wayne Allard. Ugh. That one has an evil little blurb that also makes it against the law to recognize the "legal incidents" of marriage. If that one passes, there goes my wife's medical and dental benefits, and our domestic partnership.

02-04-2005, 06:05 PM	#7
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	They can talk about "activist judges" all they want but sooner or later, don't people start to wonder why judge after judge after judge--at all judicial levels, in municipalities and states all across the country--has been striking down these marriage bans???

02-05-2005, 04:47 AM	#10
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	I for one say screw the backlash. If social issues are not pushed, they will never move forward. As I see it, either you can let the status quo remain, perhaps changing very slowly over the course of decades, or you can push for rights, let the bigots get pissed off and be in a much better situation within a decade or two, and the public begins to accept and embrace the human rights of the oppressed within a decade or so. Simian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.