Rhea

I say HOORAY for NY. And I say this from one of the three "red" counties in the state (according to electoral-vote.com). It's truly as red here as it is in Texas - and Joy! am I happy!

Kamandi

Thank God for the judiciary, and congratulations to our gay brothers and sisters in New York. I hope it lasts.

Kamandi

- Griswald vs. Connecticut, which actually went so far as to establish rights to marriage, sex, privacy, and to teach a foreign language THAT WEREN'T ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION!

God rain down hellfire on those activists!!!

erimir

And as we all know, the Founders fully intended for American citizens to have the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and no others!!!

jayh

It's tempting to support judical activism when you like the position, but it is a dangerous precedent for judges to arbitrarily redefine the constitution.This occurs in the loss of rights as well (erosions of the 4th, the 1st and even the 2nd, all decided as constitutional.

Matt the Medic

See: Amendment No. 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

See: No. 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Whenever someone complains of an "activist" judge "legislating from the bench" I kindly point them in the direction of good ole 9 and 10. It seems as if they are so blinded on focusing on Number 1 and 2 they forget these two beauties are even in the Constitution!

After warming them up with those, number fourteen makes them shut up for a good while:

(Section 1 Only)
[i] Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see how any of this is activism when the answer is as clear as day in the fricken Constitution! The NY law fails because "Man" and "Woman" are not given different legal standing and therefore there is no legal difference between "Man and Man" compared to "Man and "Woman". Both are 2 legal individuals.

:banghead:

Bumble Bee Tuna

The funny thing is, the fear that people would think the rights in the Bill of Rights were the only rights people had was the exact argument people had against adopting it. Some wanted it to guarantee those rights, but others said it would make people think that their other rights weren't protecting.

I'm still not sure who to agree with. It seems like the BoR has been infinitely helpful in providing grounds for judicial opinions, but at the same time it does have the effect its opponents had feared.

-B

MonCapitan2002

I give a :thumbs: to this decision. Hopefully New York will join Massachusetts as one of the states recognising the fact that gay couples are equal citizens and have as much of a right to marry as straight ones.

erimir

Of course, without the enumeration, it's hard to say that such and such right should be protected when Congress passes laws against it. If there was no Bill of Rights, on what grounds could a law be considered unconstitutionally abridging people's rights?

Fortunately, Article 9, 10 and 14 are suitably vague for one to "invent" rights. It's pretty hard to make the argument that marriage is a privilege, not a right and therefore we can disallow gay marriage when Article 14 refers to the privileges of US citizens and equal treatment under the law, etc.

Not that that's a bad thing. Most of the rights that have been "created" in this way haven't been too bad. It's always worrying when people think that we don't have a right to privacy and we shouldn't. And not only that, but the reason they're willing to give up their right to privacy is just so they can stick it to the gays (and theoretically, anyone into kinky sex).

Shake

NYC mayor Micheal Bloomberg has appealed the decision for the city, even though he supports the right of gays to marry. He said he'd rather have a higher court or the Legislature decide.