New York High Court Refuses to Hear Gay Marriage Case »

Posted by: david_nwpa 2 months, 2 weeks ago

4.9

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 2

Propped: 49

Comments: 45

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, Tuesday declined to hear a case challenging an appeals court ruling that found the marriages of same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where they are legal must be recognized in New York.

Read Full Story at 365gay.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 45

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

david_nwpa
May 6, 2008, 8:32 p.m.
This is a de facto ruling that says gay marriage is legal in New York. Marriages performed in other jurisdictions will be honored in New York State. In essence, this means that gay marriages performed in Massachusetts will now be honored as marriages in New York. Excellent news!

Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

gamahuche
May 6, 2008, 8:50 p.m.
Which means presumably that New York gays can get married by visiting Massachussetts and that marriage will then be legal in NY??

1 ReplyReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  david_nwpa
  May 6, 2008, 8:57 p.m.
  Yes, that would make sense. Massachusetts says that as long as the marriage is valid in the home state, it is valid in Massachusetts. New York says those marriages are valid. Hence, gay marriage is de facto legal in New York.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Radiofreeeuropa
May 7, 2008, 4:56 a.m.
These shell games are tiresome. I suppose it is a result of posturing to some degree. Though I think there is general progress in the direction of acceptance, it is a hard road with many obstacles and detours. It is worth noting that the diligence and relentless energy expended by people david nwpa and of course many others that bring about social justice.
Thanks Dave, not for just this article but for all your efforts.

1 ReplyReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  david_nwpa
  May 7, 2008, 7:33 p.m.
  You're welcome, Radiofreeeuropa. It means a lot to read what you have written. We cannot let narrow-minded people use religion to tell us whom we can marry.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Endoscopy
May 7, 2008, 1:27 p.m.
Disgusting.

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  hamy
  May 7, 2008, 3:17 p.m.
  What? The fact that not everyone is as bigoted and hate filled as you are?
  
  Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  tkyrchncs
  May 7, 2008, 10:49 p.m.
  Indeed, Endo, at times you are.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

KISA452a
May 7, 2008, 2:29 p.m.
So,let me get this straight. A right to marry for homosexuals, which has never been tradionally considered a right, is hereby created by the courts? I guess if you're for it, this beats democracy... I assume those applauding this ruling also applaud SCOTUS for what (most/many liberals) consider appointing GWB president. I mean, it's great for courts to create law which is the common charge about Bush...
Or everyone could deride judicial over-reach into the obvious purvue of the legislature and work through the democratic process to get their desires... Nah, that would be too hard and follow the law :/

10 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  hamy
  May 7, 2008, 3:21 p.m.
  Bigots like you (and your obvious hero G.W.B.) have impeded the legislative process so that the only way to get the laws changed was to challenge them in the judicial arena.
  It is illegal to discriminate. Regardless of who you discriminate against.
  Did you hear that? Illegal to discriminate.
  And if you don't mind, could you tell me in your words how two people in another state marrying affects you in the slightest?
  
  6 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    KISA452a
    May 7, 2008, 3:48 p.m.
    I'm sorry you think that people who actually think about topics are bigots. It must be a small world to you. I have expressed no love of GWB, or even saying that SCOTUS did right. Just that this same judicial activism could reasonably be considered the same as the current topic. But I guess name calling is easier than thinking.
    It is illegal to disciminate? Hmmmm. I seem to recall from my extensive law experience (sic) that you can't get a driver's lisence until a certain age. Blatant discimianation. You can't vote, drink, be president, etc until a certain age. You can't get SS until a certain age. Age discrimination is ok... I think you can discriminate in employment at a children's hospital to exclude pedophiles, right? So, discrimination is NOT illegal.
    The only thing I've said affects me is when the courts subvert the democratic and legal process to create laws of their own whim. THAT affects me!
    
    5 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      david_nwpa
      May 7, 2008, 4:45 p.m.
      What you are arguing about is not discrimination. Children are not allowed to marry because they cannot give legal consent. Nor can they legally do any of those things because of historic reasons which prevent children from being abused and manipulated. Child labor laws exist for the sake of protecting children, not discriminating against them. Furthermore, pedophilia is a crime, being gay is not. Hence, your arguments are fallacy at their finest.
      The courts are a home of last refuge when rights are taken from the most vulnerable in society. Gays and lesbians have traditionally suffered the ill-effects of societal bigotry. It would seem KISA, you are very much a part of society.
      Additionally, the court ruled that the legislature could ban such marriages, but the LEGISLATURE has NOT acted to do so. Hence, the court ruled on the law as written. No judicial over-reach here.
      
      1 ReplyReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        KISA452a
        May 7, 2008, 11:14 p.m.
        It is discrimination that you approve of, that is the only difference.
        The courts must ALWAYS give as much defference as possible to the other branches because there is no check on the judicial branch. They are by definition tyrants. And believing in democracy and the rule of law is bigotry, I guess I am.
        It's an interesting interpretation they came up with. "Everyone has known for "ever" that marriage is 1 man 1 woman. There was never really a question. But, since people didn't write this down, although it is common practice and has been interpreted as such, they must not have meant it". Rediculous reasoning. It is simply a typical example of the judicial branch having a personal opinion and finding any way to twist the laws and any rules of logic to force their morals on others.
        
        Reply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      hamy
      May 7, 2008, 6:05 p.m.
      But when those laws benefit you, I am sure you don't complain.
      Why does this issue stick in your craw. If you are straight, then there has to be a reason that this particular issue resonates.
      Remember, homosexuality was illegal in many states just until the Houston legal battle removed the sodomy laws from the books. We had to use the courts to remove outdated and unenforceable laws because of narrow minds. We will have to continue to use the courts to allow us our legal rights.
      Why does it make you so angry that we might actually get the same rights that every straight American has enjoyed for years?
      
      2 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        KISA452a
        May 7, 2008, 11:18 p.m.
        "But when those laws benefit you, I am sure you don't complain." Prove it or shut up.
        I guess you have suffered so much in life that you see anyone who disagrees with you as hateful. Unfortunately, it seems to have removed your literacy (show me any evidence of anger about homosexuality), or logic. You are happy to have the courts enforce their moral opinions. It will come back to bit e you in the butt and you will have no argument against it. Your short-sighted-ness to throw away any attempt at democracy and reason is pitiful.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        hamy
        May 9, 2008, 12:40 p.m.
        Rights cannot be granted or taken away by the majority. Period. If they could, I would tirelessly work to suspend your reproductive rights. Would that be okay?
        It is you who is not looking at the big picture. And if you feel that I should be a second class citizen, that offends me. Therefore, you are the one who was the aggressor. I merely defended my rights as a human being.
        
        Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  tkyrchncs
  May 7, 2008, 11:01 p.m.
  Rights are not agreed upon or granted by the majority, but by God (see the Declaration of Independence). Some of our rights are guaranteed (not granted, but recognized and protected) specifically by the US Constitution, but powers not given to the feds in that document (it does not mention marriage) are reserved to the states, or the people. It is the job of the courts (one of them anyway) to see to it that the majority do not trample the rights of citizens they don't like.
  Even the courts can be high-handed; however, justices are subject to impeachment for cause. Go for it if you think they are behaving in an unconstitutional manner-but you'll have to convince the legislature.
  
  2 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    KISA452a
    May 8, 2008, 8:47 a.m.
    Go find someone else to argue about your declaration that God has specified human rights...
    I'm not sure what the rest has to do with anything. Certainly nothing that I have said, so...
    
    1 ReplyReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      tkyrchncs
      May 9, 2008, 7:34 a.m.
      God has specified that we are free, masters of our own destiny and of this planet. Governments can recognize and support that, or not, but they have no power to grant rights.
      
      Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

raats6662
May 7, 2008, 2:45 p.m.
Since we ALL know (at least those of us with a brain) that "marriage" is a LEGAL, STATE issue and NOT a religious and/or FEDERAL issue it's NICE to see that STATE COURTS are approaching this issue the way that it should be..... as a CIVIL RIGHT that needs to be addressed by the states NOT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

6 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  KISA452a
  May 7, 2008, 3:18 p.m.
  Actually, marriage is a traditionally religious institution with legal trappings. Which would be why civil unions would be a reasonable alternative since it would be entirely legal without the traditional religious trappings.
  As to state vs federal, you're probably right that it is a state issue. The problem is the havoc that would cause. If every state is free to accept or reject a marriage from another state (as would be necessitated by making it a state issue), how do you decide who is married?
  
  5 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    david_nwpa
    May 7, 2008, 4:50 p.m.
    WRONG! Traditionally, marriage had to be registered with the state before it had any legal bearing whatsoever. In Europe, for example, ALL marriages must proceed through the legal system before being recognized as a matter of religion. One is not legally married until the civil ceremony is approved. Raats6682 is definitely right in that marriage is not defined by the US Constitution and has been shown to fall under the 10th Amendment as one of those matters to be handled by the states. More to the point, some denominations approve of same sex marriage. Should their religious rights (1st Amendment) be trumped by your religious rights? Besides, how does 2 gay people marrying affect you in any way at all?
    
    Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    smithichie
    May 7, 2008, 5:13 p.m.
    If marriage is a religious institution can you direct me to which church will go after my ex for child support?
    
    Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    raats6662
    May 7, 2008, 10:56 p.m.
    As to state vs federal, you're probably right that it is a state issue
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Show me one case-just one where a couple (ANY couple) is married by order of "The United States of America".
    I would LOVE to see it. Since I think that ANYBODY you ask to support your position will be able to show that they are married "by the laws that govern the state of".......New York, Illinois, Florida, California.
    *************************
    Actually, marriage is a traditionally religious institution with legal trappings.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So the people that are married in Chapels in Las Vegas, by Captain's of ships or by a Justice of the Peace and NEVER have a church wedding.....they aren't REALLY married?
    Boy, you should tell Michael Jordan that. That means he was NEVER married so he doesn't have to loose half his fortune in his divorce.
    
    Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    tkyrchncs
    May 7, 2008, 11:11 p.m.
    Actually marriage is a social and financial contract co-opted at some point by nearly every religion we know of. The only reason anyone can bring to bear why it should not be between or among any consenting individuals are religious. Because of the separation of church and state, and because of the 14th amendment, the government should have no say, beyond legal majority, in who may marry.
    
    1 ReplyReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      smithichie
      May 7, 2008, 11:18 p.m.
      You're correct and this is why there is a push for the so called Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, an amendment whose sole purpose is to limit the rights of fellow Americans. The people behind this amendment realize that without it, it's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court has to recognize gay marriage is just as legitimate and Constitutionally protected, as interracial marriage.
      
      Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

hamy
May 7, 2008, 3:25 p.m.
Have you ever read the decisions in Plessy v Fersuson? Separate and equal are not the same as having basic human rights.
In your second statement, you mention how to tell who is married or not. That is the exact reason that you can't have civil unions v marriages. If you have civil unions the separate state rights have to be separated out and granted. If you just make it marriage, there are no special necessities. Everything is the same.
See? If everyone has the same rights, then no one has to wonder who has what rights.
Do you get it?

14 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  KISA452a
  May 7, 2008, 3:43 p.m.
  Plessy v Ferguson did not explicitly state all human rights, therefore, it has little relevance here.
  You need to rethink statement 2. Your 3rd sentence answers the question in the only leagal and logical way.
  Three, the point to raats is that this is a state right. You need to go discuss with him/her why it is impossible to have this a state right. Get back to me when you two are done.
  I suspect I get it much better than you, but that is just an opinion.
  
  13 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    david_nwpa
    May 7, 2008, 4:53 p.m.
    You are just not a legal scholar, are you? Plessy v. Ferguson has everything to do with human rights. In that decision, Plessy argued that he should be allowed the same access to facilities that white people have. The court disagreed and ruled that as long as "separate, but equal" accommodations are offered, the court would not intervene. That decision was overturned in 1954 with the Brown v. Topeka Bd. of Education ruling from the US Supreme Court. I too argue, like harny, that we need to have marriage equality. Either all can wed whether gay or straight, or no one can. Seems simple to me.
    
    2 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      KISA452a
      May 7, 2008, 11:22 p.m.
      "Either all can wed whether gay or straight, or no one can. Seems simple to me."
      By Jove! I think he's got it! Keep the logic going, you'll get there :D
      
      1 ReplyReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        david_nwpa
        May 8, 2008, 4:37 p.m.
        KISA, you are making no sense. You want to keep society wrapped in some sort of 1850s time warp. Traditions over time do change. Furthermore, it is discriminatory to say that gay people cannot or should not be allowed to marry simply because the way you see it, it has not been done before.
        
        Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    hamy
    May 7, 2008, 5:59 p.m.
    I would rebut your arguments, but you didn't make any. Plessy v Ferguson is an apt reference for this argument.
    With the death of Mrs. Loving this week, I would think that people would understand how similar this is to interacial marriage.
    Read her speech she made last year on the 40th anniversary of Loving v State of Virginia. I think you will be surprised to hear her equate the struggles as well.
    
    Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    tkyrchncs
    May 7, 2008, 11:17 p.m.
    States may say whom they will marry or not, perhaps, but they cannot constitutionally refuse to recognize the legal and constitutional actions of other states. The federal law says they can in this matter, but let the SC get hold of that one!
    
    8 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      KISA452a
      May 7, 2008, 11:26 p.m.
      This is actually a reasoanble position :D Good for you. Though, if a state can define marriage, they can also reject to accept a different state's opinion. State A "Marriage shall be defined as beetween 1 man and 1 woman". State B: "Marriage shall be between 1 man and 1 woman, or 2 women, or 2 men". Person with marriage in B comes to A and says "You must recognize my marriage that does not fit your definition. State A reasonably says "No. According to our laws you can not be married, since you've argued the feds have nothing to say about marriage, get lost". You say? "Ummmmm. But at this point, I won what I want so the feds can come back"?
      
      7 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        tkyrchncs
        May 8, 2008, 7:10 a.m.
        When I was 15 my neighbors had a grandson my age who came to visit from Florida, who had already had a driver's license for a year. He drove us all over town all summer because since the State of Florida had licensed him to drive, he could drive anywhere in America, because of "full faith and credit" granted in the Constitution. You are required to be extradited to any state where you are accused or convicted of a crime, even though your actions are not criminal in the state you must be extradited from. For what conceivable reason should this not apply to a marriage, which must be recognized in another state if under-age there? Yep, you can take your 14-yr-old wife to New York and live with her there as a wife and get all marriage benefits there for her, but not your 30 yr old same-sex spouse. Right.
        
        6 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        KISA452a
        May 8, 2008, 8:52 a.m.
        I guess I'd need to better understand the "full faith and credit". I know that I can use a radar detector in Maryland but not in Virginia. If I cross the border, my rights change even though I legally bought and used it in Maryland. I can buy a car that is legal in 1 state, but when I go to get it in spected in another state, it has to pass the new state's requirments. I can have a factory in 1 state, move to a new state and have different requirments for the factor that make the original unacceptable. Cross state lines OFTEN changes the legality of an object, act, contract, etc. A national company can do business in 1 state but not another because it is not recognized int he new state.
        The only ones who can control interstate commerce (which has been interpreted to mean anything that crosses state lines, such as kidnapping that crosses state lines, etc) are the Feds. Your argument seems to say that the feds should control marriage.
        
        5 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        KISA452a
        May 8, 2008, 8:57 a.m.
        And before someone says "We're talking about marriage not a business", the argument that has to be made by those in favor of gay marriage is that marriage is a legal contract and and nothing more. Also, it belongs to states to regulate this business in any way they see fit that does not violate the US constitution's protections.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        raats6662
        May 8, 2008, 1:24 p.m.
        If I cross the border, my rights change even though I legally bought and used it in Maryland.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Actually that's the difference...rights and laws. You don't have the RIGHT to use a radar detector in Virginia, the LAW says that you can.
        In the case of marriage the LAWS of different states say who can GET married and under what circumstance. For example in Nevada you can get a marriage license in a matter of minutes and you don't have to have any residency requirements but you have to be 18. When my parents were married in California 60 years ago my Dad had to have his parents sign for him but my Mom didn't. Why? Because CA LAW said a MAN couldn't marry under 21 without a parents permission, but for a woman is was 18.
        HOWEVER, just because the LAWS differ from state to state about (WHO and HOW) GETTING married the RIGHTS associated with that status can't be. And when states start passing LAWS to erode those RIGHTS that's when this arguments will be decided in court.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        raats6662
        May 8, 2008, 1:37 p.m.
        I can buy a car that is legal in 1 state, but when I go to get it in spected in another state, it has to pass the new state's requirments.
        ~~~~~~~~~~...
        This is actually a more "apples to apples" argument. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you can't DRIVE your car in the other state. As long as YOUR car is LICENSED in one state you have the RIGHT to drive it in another state (even if you CAN'T license it in the state you are visiting)
        ***************************
        In Nevada the speed limit is 75 mph on the freeway. The LAW says that is the maximum you are allowed to drive. In California the speed limit is 70 mph on some freeways and 75 on others. In Oregon the speed limit is 65 mph.
        My Utah drivers license gives me the RIGHT to drive in any state in the union, but the LAWS of Utah do not dictate HOW I can drive in New York.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        david_nwpa
        May 8, 2008, 4:41 p.m.
        Wrong across the board! You are talking about marriage and not business. Commerce is regulated by the Congress. Marriages are valid in one state and shall be honored by all others as has been accepted vis a vis the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Marriage is a contract. It is a compact reached by two parties and bound by the law. As of today, most states in a very narrow-minded way, define marriage as they do. KISA seems to think that no one is harmed by such a definition. What if a state prevented you from marrying the person you love, for whatever reason. How would you respond??
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        david_nwpa
        May 8, 2008, 4:43 p.m.
        Marriage is reserved to the States vis a vis the 10th Amendment. See Loving v. Virginia.
        
        Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

SonOfTheMask
May 7, 2008, 5:35 p.m.
This case would seem to fly in the face of the Defense of Marriage Act. New York does not recognzie homosexual marriage. DOMA protects states from having to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. Thus, New York should be federally protected from having to recognize homosexual marriages if it so chooses. I haven't read all the rulings, but evidently a lower appeals court felt otherwise and this highest appelate court decided not to hear the case further. My guess is that the courts are trying to push the issue back to the legislature.
It's too bad that Loving over-reached and provided precedence for the idea that there is a fundamental right to marriage. Too many people take that language and make it dance to what they want.

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  tkyrchncs
  May 7, 2008, 11:21 p.m.
  DOMA will never withstand a constitutional challenge.
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    SonOfTheMask
    May 8, 2008, 5:55 p.m.
    Perhaps, but if it is so blatantly unconstitutional why has SCOTUS declined to hear any challenges to it?
    And, frankly, I disagree with your opinion, I think it would withstand challenges under "full faith and credit" and "due process".
    
    Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

david_nwpa
May 7, 2008, 6:55 p.m.
Actually this case does not fly in the face of DOMA. It does not because the court ruled that the law in New York is moot on this very subject. If the legislature chooses to change the law, then so be it. However, in lieu of the legislative battle, the court ruled that the applicable law says that the State of New York recognizes the marriage laws of other jurisdictions. Since the highest court of New York refused to rule, the Appellate Court ruling stands.

Reply | Report!