Skip to main content

Headline only at the New York Times at this time. More to come.

Update: The New York Times has a story posted about the ruling. Some key paragraphs:

The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision rejected arguments from gay and lesbian plaintiffs throughout the state that their inability to get marriage licences in New York violated their constitutional rights.

Judge Robert Smith said New York's marriage law clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman and any change in the law should come from the state Legislature.

This is a set-back, but people should be aware that New Jersey is expected to rule any day now on their case, and the prospects in that state are much better. The New Jersey Supreme Court is more progressive than the New York court and the hearing earlier this year gave gay rights advocates hope that the court would rule in their favor. New York was never considered a likely possibility, only a good shot.

P.S. I've been trollrated for posting this diary originally as a placeholder with headline only and filling in the news 15 minutes later as it became available. So as a result of this, I have lost my TU status.

I believed I was doing a service by sharing the news the moment it became available--being a gay married man in Massachusetts, I remember how important it was to me to hear about our court decision as soon as it was handed down. If you disagree with the trollrating, I'd appreciate some mojo to balance it out. Thank you.

Originally posted to brittain33 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:16 AM PDT.

Poll

Headline only diaries: OK, or no?

50%31 votes
50%31 votes

| 62 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rita in DC, redlami, another American

    ...delete this diary and repost when you do have something to say.  All you are doing now is taking up space.

  •  Fucking activist judges (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kaity

    How dare they not give the GOP something to scream about in this election year?  See this is exactly why we need an ... amendment... never mind.

    You know, I don't even claim to come close to understanding the law on this.  Far as I'm concerned, everybody should be able to get married.  But from a political standpoint the world is just not cooperating with the GOP right now.  

    North Korea missile threat, pretty much a dud.

    NY judges, no gay marriage.

    Administration's committment to find Bin Laden, not so much.

    Flag Burning Amendment, nobody cared.

    Gas Prices, going back up.

    Sucks to be them right now.

    Who Burns for the Perfection of Paper - Martin Espada

    by demkat620 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:21:04 AM PDT

  •  more (6+ / 0-)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    It was a 4-2 decision

    Judge Robert Smith said New York’s marriage law clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman and any change in the law should come from the state legislature.

    Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:22:14 AM PDT

  •  From the FAQ, FYI... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brittain33, Adam B, AaronBa

    Diary Guidelines:

    1. Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.
  •  Narrow fundamental right....is there such a thing (5+ / 0-)

    I'm currently disappointed with the New York Court of Appeals decision about same sex marriage. They essentially screwed us. That's the best way to describe it. They chose to narrowly define the fundamental right to marry as being a fundamental right for opposite sex couples. By doing so, they restricted they were allowed to apply a rational basis test to determine if the law unconstitutionally excludes same sex couples. Convenient (because rational basis basically allows a legislature to get away with anything) and done solely because of political pressure.

    I think it's a bogus and very Bower-esque form of narrow fundamental right interpretation. The dissent in the case eviscerates the majority (which was a plurality...btw) and states "fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights. Indeed, in recasting plaintiffs' invocation of their fundamental right to marry as a request for recognition of a "new" right to same-sex marriage, the Court misapprehends the nature of the liberty interest at stake."

    The only positive that I can find in this ruling is that it gives the fundies some red meat to lay off the need for a Constitutional amendment. What needs to happen now is legislative action in NY granting domestic partnerships or marriage.

    "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." -George W. Bush

    by DemoCratic on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:35:06 AM PDT

    •  i'd have to read he opinion (0+ / 0-)

      to understand what their exact arguments are

      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:36:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i've read it... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glenn in NYC, demkat620

        and i get the arguments on both sides.

        they majority distinguishes this case from lawrence because it asserts that the plantiffs here aren't seeking relief from excessive governmental intrusion on their right to privacy. according to the majority, this is of graver signficance than trying to gain access to a series of governmentally granted privileges.  further, it narrowly defines the right to marriage as the right for opposite couples to marry.  by doing so, it avoids strict scruitiny...and we all know what happens then.

        "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." -George W. Bush

        by DemoCratic on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:40:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately (4+ / 0-)

      I don't know if we even get that consolation, because New Jersey will certainly rule before the election, and the prospects for passage there are much brighter.

      Legislative prospects in NY are nil as long as Republicans control the State Senate and Pataki entertains delusions of running for President. Perhaps Spitzer can move the legislature in a more progressive direction--the State Senate bent on anti-discrimination laws recently after years of lobbying, despite their social conservative base.

    •  Embarrassing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amberglow, demkat620, Turbonerd

      The argument by Judge Smith on the fundamental right is just embarrassingly illogical.  It's a variation of the "marriage is by definition opposite-sex" argument that has actually won the day among many idiots.  I'm just embarrassed as a New Yorker that our Court of Appeals would buy into it.  It's bootstrapping, circular argument, pure and simple -- when people challenge the denial of one of their rights, you just "define" the right not to apply to them.  And what's more, you justify it because that's the way it's always been.  

      A very sad day for justice in New York.  Thank you, George Pataki, for appointing such brilliant jurists to our court.

      •  sort-of (0+ / 0-)

        he's asking the question of how narrow or broad the fundamental right is that we should be talking about.  He doesn't deny that the right to marry is a fundamental right, but he states that the right to marry anyone, regardless of sex, is not a fundamental right.

        It's not an inherent "marriage is for opposite-sex" only because it would work the other way if the situation was reversed.

        Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:11:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the situation were reversed...? (0+ / 0-)

          I have no idea what you mean by that.  

          Here's what Judge Smith says:

          The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right.  The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not "deeply rooted"; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times.  The issue then becomes whether the right to marry must be defined to include a right to same-sex marriage. ... Here, there are, as we have explained, rational grounds for limiting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. ... We conclude that, by defining marriage as it has, the NY Legislature has not restricted the exercise of a fundamental right.

          He's clearly saying that because marriage has traditionally been defined as same-sex only, that's as far as the right goes.  No, it's not exactly the same as the "definitional" argument, but it's pretty damn close.

          And, more to the point, here's why it's bootstrapping and circular.  The whole enchilada here is what scrutiny gets applied:  rational basis -- under which pretty much anything goes, even (perhaps) the flimsy "protection of children" arguments the court accepts here -- or strict scrutiny, under which there's no question the restriction would be struck down.  Restriction of a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny; marriage is a fundamental right.  What Smith does here is get to apply rational basis scrutiny anyway by saying (sort of) that this is not the situation of the Legislature denying a fundamental right to a group of citizens, but rather one where the Legislature has defined the fundamental right not to include those citizens, and that this "redefinition" is subject only to rational basis scrutiny.

          The flaws here are many.  One, it's apparent that it's nothing but semantic trickery to say that the Legislature has not denied the right, it's only defined it.  Second, it is not up to the legislature to "define" the fundamental right, it's up to the court, and Smith completely punts on that, except to say that since traditionally marriage is not same-sex, the right therefore does not encompass same-sex marriage.  

          Of course, that exact argument would have applied in Loving, too, right?  

          •  i meant (0+ / 0-)

            if the history of marriage was that only same-sex marriage were allowed but not opposite-sex marriage, then OSM would be treated then as SSM is treated in this case.

            also, this is distinguishing between the questions of whether you can marry and who you can marry.

            Let's say marrying someone of the same sex is a fundamental right.  then where does that right end?  Can one marry anyone period, regardless of anything?  There is a catch if you go the way you think the court should go as well.

            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  all the same arguments could be and were used (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amberglow

              to defend bans on interracial marriage. is it a fundamental right to be able to marry the person you choose if their skin color is different? if loving v. virginia is considered to be binding legal precedent, it seems rather clear to my eyes.

              crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

              by wu ming on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:35:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  The Fundamental Flaw of this Ruling! (4+ / 0-)

    From pages 8-9 of the ruling:

    First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

    Gee, Mr. Justice Smith, what about the FIFTY PERCENT DIVORCE RATE??!?!???!?

    •  people blow off the procreation argument (0+ / 0-)

      as being insignificant, but this ruling helps show that such an argument would be the centerpiece in any challenge asserting that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:42:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine, then apply it equally! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amberglow, pico, working for change

        No marriage shall be bestowed upon any heterosexual couple wherein one or both members are infertile as a result of injury, congenital flaw, or post-menopausal status.

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          it's one argument, not the only argument.

          Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:45:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here is their answer to this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amberglow

          In arguing that the definition is overinclusive, plaintiffs point out that many opposite-sex couples cannot have or do not want to have children.  How can it be rational, they ask, to permit these couples, but not same-sex couples, to marry? The question is not a difficult one to answer.  While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and arbitrary and  unreliable line-drawing.

          Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:15:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  isn't that admitting that they're prejudiced? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Turbonerd

            without any real basis for being so? wtf?

            •  no (0+ / 0-)

              they answered why they are easily distinguished via the ability to have children argument.  they are distinguished biologically, and thus, by their reasoning, it is not a prejudiced difference.

              Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:21:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  they can't make an easy distinction that doesn't (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                amberglow, Turbonerd

                also apply to heteros without this being homophobia. it's bad language no matter what one thinks of gay marriage b/c if its making the procreation claim- then that clearly brings into questions marriages w/o children that are straight. either the argument is valid in both cases or it is not. this- i suspect in 10 years- if there is no statutue- will got he way of bowers v hardwick - as a distintion without meaning. as I remember you were making similar claims in other diairies using faulty legal reasoning

                •  it is an easy question (0+ / 0-)

                  same-sex couples are biologically different.  There is no possible way, under any circumstances, that they can have children.  that is a fundamental biological difference.

                  Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:31:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not true--donated sperm, for just one example (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Turbonerd

                    --which straight people do too. If those straight people who do that are protected, then other couples have to be too.

                    •  what? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      deathsinger

                      opposite sex couples cannot biologically have children with each other.  that's the argument.  its not whether they can have children generally, it's whether they can have children togeter.

                      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:47:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  that's not the legal question (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wu ming, amberglow

                    you want to make this about your issues ont he subject. there is no biological difference between an intertile hetero couple getting married and a gay couple getting married when it comes to children b/c neither can have children. that's the only salient point when it comes to the legal argument being made. as I have said you like to argue your prejudice under the guise of law, but it's still prejudice because its a legal distintion without meaning. One of the reasons this case ruling is problematic based on my understanding of the language is that it requires legal contortions that you are now finding yourself engaging in to justitify it. The S Ct of the US had to do the same thing with Bowers wherein they rules in favor of sodomy laws against gays back in 1985 b/c they made a false distinction between being gay and gay acts- one of the central problems was that as one justice later pointed out about ther uling being bad law- is that why couldn't other people make a similar legal distinction- ie, say that they are making laws not against jews but jewish acts. here, in this case, we have similar faulty reasoning. it only makes sense to you b/c like most prejudicial people yoou see it through the lense of the prejudice rather than whether or not its good law.

                •  also (0+ / 0-)

                  setting the bar at fertility and not the biological difference would appear to threaten the fundamental right to marry in general.  What would you argue? that an infertile person can't marry period?

                  That isn't the case here.  The court isn't denying the right to marry to gays.  They can still marry someone - as long as they are of the opposite sex.  I don't recall the decision addressing this specifically, but this is another significant reason why the line is drawn where it is.

                  Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:34:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i am not arguing that (0+ / 0-)

                    they are. see my definition of marriage doesn't require your contortions to justify it. the ruling is fundamentally illogical in what it is saying.

                    •  simplicity is irrelevent (0+ / 0-)

                      since you appear to be arguing here that "my way of doing things is easier, so that means it's correct" which is of course not how the law works.

                      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:49:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no- I am arguing logic (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        amberglow

                        I just had a straight attorney at work read the case- and he agrees the logic here makes no sense. Regardless of the rational basis test or any other tests, there must at least in its application make some sort of sense. The problem that you and they face is that there isn't any.

          •  Or in other words, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wu ming

            Ensuring that all citizens have equal rights would be hard, so let's not bother trying.

            Seems like this is what the founding fathers did with slavery, but that problem did not simply go away either.

    •  Read it again (0+ / 0-)

      The court is saying that heterosexual partnerings are likely to be casual and temporary, unless given the added incentive of the privileges incident to marriage ... or at least, that the legislature could have concluded that to be so.

      •  I realize that, and such is my point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amberglow, working for change

        Obviously limiting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples has done nothing to prevent casual and temporary relationships.

        •  You don't know that (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps without the incidents of marriage, such relationships would be even less enduring than they are now.  

          I'm not defending the decision, mind you; I think it's a bad result, and I'm still mulling over the reasoning of the majority opinion.  I find it remarkable, though, that the opinion stands the homophobes' slurs upside down: that heteros are so unstable that we have to lure them into marriage with tax breaks.

          •  I think (0+ / 0-)

            you have it backwards.

            Marriage didn't lead to people forming 'enduring relationships'.  Rather, it is the propensity for people to form these relationships that lead to the institution of marriage.

            We are the people we are looking for.

            by working for change on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:16:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  legally (0+ / 0-)

              tax law required the legal institution of marriage, as a way for states to track inheritance and other legal rights, going all the way back to the romans and other ancient states. lifelong social bonds didn't get treated by law until state wanted to monitor, register and tax their population at the household level. the fact that people form social bonds didn't make it a legal institution, taxation and censuses did.

              crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

              by wu ming on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:41:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Don't tell me that (0+ / 0-)

              ... tell it to the court.

              I'm not saying I agree with their reasoning, but that is how they've reasoned: that marriage is an institution designed to foster permanent relationships by providing incentives to stay together, not a ratification of an enduring partnering.  

      •  correct (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        demkat620

        Im reading it now, and this is part of the decision which is kind of wrapped up by stating "this is why a legislature could rationally give marriage rights to same-sex couples"

        Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:47:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  or pardon me (0+ / 0-)

          i must have read that wrong.  ok, i'm wondering if this is going where I think it is.  it almost makes it looks like the argument is that "same sex couples are MORE stable, and thus marriage is not required for stability"

          Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:48:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's more (0+ / 0-)

            ... that the legislature might not care as much about the stability of same-sex relationships, because they're not naturally prone to creating children.

            •  but there are many children -- part of families (0+ / 0-)

              that desperately need these protections--protections only given thru marriage. Is that recognized in the decision?

              •  they acknowledge (0+ / 0-)

                the fact that gay parents may adopt children, etc.  However, they state that doesn't make it irrational for the legislature to restrict marriage only to opposite-sex couples

                Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:56:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  how rational is it to deny those children rights? (0+ / 0-)

                  and their families? Family structures change all the time--some children are born to them, some are adopted, some are with just a mom, or a just a grandma, etc...

                  Their welfare and rights are derived in great part from the family status. Denying their families and their guardians the same rights that straight families get cannot be right.

                  •  you post two questions (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    HarlanNY

                    as to the "it cannot be right" question - that's for the most part irrelevent when it comes to law.  Just like in case like Kelo, something can appear to be wrong, but still be constitutional and legal.  I'm not arguing rightness or wrongness.  I'm arguing legalness, as is the court.

                    The court basically says that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships differ in a very fundamental way - centered arond the procreation argument - gay couples, no matter what they do, cannot procreate. this isn't the case with the vast majority of opposite-sex couples.

                    The court, apparently, sees this different as significant enough to argue that the state legislature than thus rationally distinguish between the two groups when creating marriage law.

                    Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  procreation is just straight sex, in the law? or (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Turbonerd

                      is procreation the having of progeny?

                      And what about IVF and other non-straight-sex means of having kids? Since they are not naturally able to have kids, should they be not allowed to marry too?

                      •  well, procreation is convienient (0+ / 0-)

                        its more along the lines of "the ability to have children" since actually having children isn't a requirement, necessarily.

                        They acknowledge that things like gays being able to adopt are reasons why the legislature could one day legalize same-sex marriage.  However, they state, because of the difference in the ability to have their own children, same-sex couples are fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples.

                        Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:19:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  that's not good enough then-- (0+ / 0-)

                          especially if the law is blind. Infertile couples should not be able to marry. Post-menopausal couples neither.

                          those straight people who can't produce children still get all the rights and benefits but not other couples and families where children are actually present??? that can't be right.

                          •  their argument is basically this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HarlanNY

                            there is a clear biological differenc between SSC and OSC (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples - i dont feel like typing that out each time).

                            OSCs can, generally, biologically have children.  SSCs cannot.  The court sees this as a significant biological difference between the two relationships which allows for a rational denial of marriage rights to SSCs.

                            They address the issue you bring up by saying that, while there are some OSCs who cannot or choose not to have children, drawing the line at "having children" and not the inherent biological difference would create an overly intrusive system which would result in couples basically having to prove their fertility to marry.

                            Also, I don't recall this addressing this, but such a restriction could also deny a person the right to marry period while that isn't the case in the distinction they made.  gays can still get married - not not to a person of the same sex.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:29:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but 'overly intrusive' only for straights? what (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wu ming

                            about the denial of rights? that's not a rational basis to deny rights.

                            "Straight couples have kids. So they can marry. Gay couples can't, even tho they do have kids as part of their families. But infertile straight couples can marry too, and we wouldn't dream of imposing any restrictions on them or denying rights to any straight couples (ignoring blood tests and other real restrictions already)."  WTF????

                          •  the court doesn't see this as (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HarlanNY

                            the denial as the right to marry.  They state that gays have the fundamental right to marry.  The question is whether that fundamental right extends to allowing you to marry anyone regardless of sex.

                            The court doesn't appear to see the fact of actually having children as being relevent to whether one should have the right to marry, at least that was my impression.  They are more concerned about whether

                            1. same-sex marriage should be included under the fundamental right to marry (they said no - they said that while the right to marriage is fundamental, the right to marry anyone regardless of sex is not)
                            1. is gay-marriage like interracial-marriage (they said no. while there is history of past discrimination against gays, the biological difference between SSCs and OSCs makes it so that the two can be treated differently without bias)
                            1. is there a rational basis to treat the two groups differently (they said no, via the biological difference argument)
                            1. is this sex discrimination? (no - males and females are treated exactly the same)

                            They point to the fact that gays can adopt as a reason why gay marriage can be made legal by the legislature in the future.  but they don't see the ability to have children or adopt children as creating a constitutional right to marry the person who is in the same household as you and the child.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  err oops (0+ / 0-)

                            #3 should say yes, not no.  yes there is a rational asis to treat the groups differently.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:45:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that rational basis is is not equally applied, (0+ / 0-)

                            & they acknowledge that--which should nullify that as a rational basis.

                          •  how is it not equally applied? (0+ / 0-)

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:50:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bec it doesn't apply to childless straight couple (0+ / 0-)

                            s--they're still allowed to marry regardless of any legislature. It doesn't apply to post-menopausal couples or couples who marry for a day in Vegas--none of those couples are being asked to meet the test that they're judging same sex couples to have to meet.

                          •  i think you miss the point (0+ / 0-)

                            male/male and female/female are biologically different from male/female - regardless of whether an opposite-sex couple can or chooses to have children.  the court is discussing this in a general sense.  To say it in a non-pc fashion "those parts just don't go together"

                            generally OSCs can have children. SSCs cannot.

                            Also, we're discussing this in the framework of what the legislature is required to allow.  The court believes that just because the legislature may allow infertile straight couples to marry, that doesn't require them to allow same-sex marriage.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:58:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  'parts don't go together' is not rational basis (0+ / 0-)

                            --or a legal basis or any kind of basis. sodomy would still be outlawed too, like it used to be. It's not.

                          •  sodomy is private activity (0+ / 0-)

                            marriage is a state institution.  That's a fundamental difference.  If marriage were something that people "just did" I would tend to agree with you, but that's not the case.

                            I highlighted the "parts don't go together" to highlight the biological difference being discusses, since people on here are constantly trying to push the fertility line, which isn't the biological difference being made.

                            as I believe the concurrance makes note - a marriage involves three parties, not two - the husband, the wife, and the state.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:06:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but i'm not the one making the distinction based (0+ / 0-)

                            on actions--the court is making that mistake. Marriage is something people "just do" too. Because same sex couples can't have kids like straight couples do is about actions, not inherent rights or status.

                          •  its not about actions (0+ / 0-)

                            same sex couples cannot biologically have their own children under any circumsances.  that is inherent in all same sex couples, without exception.

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  procreation is an action (0+ / 0-)
                          •  procreation is an action (0+ / 0-)

                            the biological ability to procreate is not.

                            and since same-sex couples have an absolute inability to procreate, at least within the relationship, that distinguishes same-sex couples as a group from opposite-sex couples

                            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:40:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not so sure about the point (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            amberglow

                            Same sex couples can "procreate" in the sense that they produce children.  They cannot at this point do so by each individual's contribution of DNA, unlike same-gender couples. But why should this make a legal difference? A child is produced and must be cared for.

                            My reading of the court's opinion is that the difference is mostly that heterosexual biological procreation can be "hasty", while other forms of procreation (adoption, artificial insemination) are not.  And therefore, in some wierd kind of band-aid solution, the legislature could rationally want to reward the hasty form by allowing marriage but not the other.  Well it's an attenuated form of rationality, especially if the basic point is to provide stability for the children produced.

        •  But under a heading that states... (0+ / 0-)

          That states the rational for limiting this right to opposite-sex couples --- not a compelling reason to extend it to same-sex couples.

          Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is
          important to the welfare of children.

    •  hmmm (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not a fan of this opinion, but all the court is doing here is explaining a couple of the rational basis that the Legislature could use.  It was just an example...

      The fact that divorce rates are high among heteros would only reinforce the majority's argument.

      This case was lost when they narrowly defined the right to marry...that's it, plain and simple.

      "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." -George W. Bush

      by DemoCratic on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:44:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Talk about SPECIAL rights? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amberglow

        The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

        Yet, conservatives claim that I am demanding special rights?

  •  Well, on the good news side... (8+ / 0-)

    Massachusetts business people say "yes" to gay marriage:

    Leaders oppose bid to ban gay marriage
    165 prominent names ask state to drop issue

    By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff  |  July 6, 2006

    Taking on Governor Mitt Romney and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 165 prominent business and civic leaders are publicly calling for the Legislature to reject a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    The group, which includes leading bankers, healthcare executives, lawyers, and leaders of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, has purchased an ad in The Boston Globe that says the amendment would ``take away rights." It urges lawmakers to ``move on to other important issues like strengthening the economy, improving our schools, and protecting our neighborhoods".... [snip]

    Chad Gifford, former chairman of Bank of America, who is one of the ad's signers, said that if the marriage amendment goes to the ballot, the state's political leadership would be consumed by a divisive debate that will divert lawmakers' attention from more important issues, such as education, the economy, and the environment.

    ....

    It was nice to see something not inflammatory and sensible on this issue.

  •  Justice Robert S. Smith BIO (0+ / 0-)

    From the Court of Appeals website:

    On June 1, 2003, he became an individual practitioner and Special Counsel to the firm of Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard. On November 4, 2003 he was appointed by Governor George E. Pataki to the Court of Appeals. The appointment was confirmed by the State Senate on January 12, 2004. He and his wife, Dian G. Smith, live in New York City. They have three children and two grandchildren.

  •  link to the opinion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, Christopher Walker

    "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." -George W. Bush

    by DemoCratic on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:47:06 AM PDT

  •  Bloomberg (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amberglow

    If I recall correctly this is the case that Bloomberg had NYC appeal, even though he supported same sex marriage, correct?  For my fellow NYers who thought there was nothing bad about Bloomberg back in November I hope they keep this in mind.

    •  Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg against the couples (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amberglow

      The four lawsuits pending before the Court of Appeals were brought against city and town clerks who approve marriage license applications and the state's health department. At issue is whether the Domestic Relations Law, which restricts marriage to members of opposite sexes, violates rights protected under the state constitution. Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg and Attorney General Spitzer are arguing the case against the couples.

      via NY Sun
      (sorry for linking to the NY Sun, it is the only source I can find)  

  •  very disappointing news-- (0+ / 0-)

    i don't see how any Judge could seriously think that it's actually not a Constitutional rights and equal protection matter, but one that this generation's majority rule should handle even tho the next would vote differently. Was Plessy v. Ferguson ok, because that reflected majority rule, but then full citizenship was ok, even tho it didn't reflect majority rule at the time?

    I don't get it at all--it seems like an excuse not to handle the matter, and just a passing of the buck (to our notoriously ineffective state legistature, too)

    •  they're actually using the arguments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brittain33

      that I expected a court to make:

      gay marriage is not equivilent interracial marriage via Loving v. Virginia for various reasons (including the argument that a ban on same-sex marriage can be argued rationally and without bias - mainly on the procreation argument in this case)

      The right to marry is fundamental, but the right to marry anyone you want, regardless of sex, is not a fundamental right.

      at least to this point that about sums up the arguments.  I'm still reading though

      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:00:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  also ruled not sex discrimination (0+ / 0-)

        as i've argued on here before:

        By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination.  The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a  benefit not given to the other.  Women and men are treated alike  -- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.

        which is the identical argument i've used on here before.

        Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Judge George Bundy Smith's betrayal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Walker

    The real story here, to me, is not Judge Robert Smith's opinion, but the fact that Judge George Bundy Smith joined it.  (He also joined Judge Graffeo's concurrence.)  

    FYI, the court is currently split 4-3 among Pataki and Cuomo appointees (4 Pataki, 3 Cuomo).  But one of the Pataki appointees, Judge Rosenblatt, recused himself (for unstated reasons).  

    George Bundy Smith is a Cuomo appointee who's term is up before Pataki leaves office.  Because of his liberal background, it's been assumed that Pataki wouldn't reappoint him, but Smith has been making noise that he wants another term.  For him to join the Pataki judges on this one -- well, you don't really have to get your tin-foil hats out to figure out what's going on, do you?

  •  the key summary passage (5+ / 0-)

    Now, they're wrong, but this what it is:

    The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples. The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course the Legislature may (subject to the effect of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Pub L 104-199, 110 Stat 2419) extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

    First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

    The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

    There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.

    Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

    Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could rationally think otherwise.

    •  Seems to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amberglow

      that passage isn't arguing the law but projecting a possible debate in the legislature that hasn't yet occurred.  That's the definition of activist isn't it?  We rule this way cause we think this is how some people might think.

      Who Burns for the Perfection of Paper - Martin Espada

      by demkat620 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:06:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's the rationale???? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      demkat620

      appalling. Since when are our rights dependent on what some might do or say? Aren't they inalienable? Isn't is clearly established that all children deserve the same rights and protections, no matter what kind of family they're part of?

      •  No they are not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deathsinger

        Some rights are inalienable, some are very much alienable.  Depends on teh nature of the right.

        Second you are begging the question.  You assume that there is a right to same-sex marriage and then get upset that the right was not protected, when teh very question is whether there is such a right to begin with.

    •  interesting (0+ / 0-)

      Now, it's unlikely that when the NY laws were written, either of those arguments were even considered. But basically it seems to me that the court is asking the legislature to consider these two arguments (both of which are a little bit lacking in empirical support), and state clearly whether they either believe in one or both of them, or alternatively they should make marriage gender-neutral. I certainly hope the legislature chooses the latter.

      Personally, I can't really criticize the court here. I happen to believe that gay marriage is a good idea, but that it's not a constitutional right. Gay marriage should be established by changes in opinion (which are happening steadily, polls say), not by what seems to me to be a stretch of a constitutional argument. Bloomberg's right on this one...

      •  that's not the question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amberglow

        whether gay marriage is a right- but whether there should be equal application of laws. by reducing it to a particular you group you miss the nature of the question. i could say for example that black marriage isn't a fundamental right or marriage between blacks and whites are. but that would also miss the point. the right in question is equality under the law

        •  but according to this court (0+ / 0-)

          banning interracial marriage probably wouldn't even pass rational basis, even if it wasn't considered fundamental (which it would be now).

          Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:53:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Equal protection of the laws (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HarlanNY

          does not require that everyone be treated the same, only that those SIMILARLY SITUATED be treated the same.  Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are not exactly similarly situated for pure biological reasons.

          •  you say things (0+ / 0-)

            much better than I.  of course, i'm not a lawyer either, though I try to understand legal things like this as much as I can.

            Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:18:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  neither are men or women or (0+ / 0-)

            the genetically-disabled and abled, or many others. How is that an ok basis for granting or disallowing rights? Doesn't it follow that if it's individual rights and not couple's rights, that reason is moot?

            •  No it does not (0+ / 0-)

              And if you noticed, men and women precisely because they are not always similarly situated are not always treated the same.  For example, men and women have to satisfy different physical standards to join the police force.  The disabled get to park in handicapped parking spaces while the able ones cannot do so, precisely because the 2 groups are not similarly situated.  

      •  changes in opinion are no basis of any kind to (0+ / 0-)

        either deny or grant rights---interracial couples would have never been able to marry then, nor would women have the vote, nor slaves been freed, nor integrated education been mandated, etc...

        •  What are you trying to say? (0+ / 0-)

          Women were granted the right to vote by some legislatures, then by a Constitution Amendment.  Slavery was ended by a Constitutional Amendment.  Integration rulings simply ended the mistake made previously by the courts.

          The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

          by deathsinger on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:00:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  popular opinion is not where granting (0+ / 0-)

            rights or not granting them happens. waiting for popular opinion to come around before you grant rights is not what is supposed to happen.

            •  i think the argument would be made (0+ / 0-)

              that gays already have the right to marry - just not to people of the same sex - so its a question of expanding rights, not granting rights.

              Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:08:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not if the right to marry is applied only to (0+ / 0-)

                some citizens and not others. It's restricted now to all straight couples of age. It's not being granted to other couples of age who should be allowed it. IT's not expansion but application of existing rights to all who are eligible.

                •  its not restricted (0+ / 0-)

                  gays can marry someone of the opposite sex.  The right to marry is seen, in a sense, as an individual right.  Do you individually have the right to marry? the answer to that for every person is "yes"

                  Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:12:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The Constitution does not protect couples (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  deathsinger

                  It protects individuals.  As indivisuals an argument could be made that gays are not discriminated because their right to marry is just as broad as the heterosexuals' right to marry.

                  •  then why is procreation an issue at all? (0+ / 0-)

                    individuals can't procreate by themselves. If it's only an individual protection--children and family have no place in making a determination, no?

                    The fact that they use children and procreation means that they themselves don't see it as only an individual right.

                    •  because the question in rational basis (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      HarlanNY

                      was whether same sex relationships can be seen as being different from opposite sex relationships, and they concluded yes.

                      This was a question of whether these groups could be rationally treated differently. It wasn't a question of a constitutional right at that point.

                      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

                      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:29:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Procreation is an issue because (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      deathsinger

                      the question is whether the New York legislature acted rationally when it devised the institution of marriage.  In order to decide whether an action was rational one must ask whether

                      a) it further a legitimate government interest and
                      b) whether the means chosen to advance that interest are rational.

                      Promoting procreation is a legitimate government interest, as the survival of the species depends thereon.  Channeling opposite sex relationships into a structure that would promote procreation is a rational action.

              •  heard this one before (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                amberglow

                that gays blacks already have the right to marry - just not to people of the same sex the white race - so its a question of expanding rights, not granting rights.

                all that's changed is that we've found ourselves a new untermenschen. they cooked up a biological rationale the last time too.

                crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

                by wu ming on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:49:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  In fact all rights that are (0+ / 0-)

              uniformly recognized have been granted by the popular opinion via legislative and constitutional changes.

  •  Majority opinion scant in law, Dissent is replete (3+ / 0-)

    Scroll down in the decision. You will note that the Majority Opinion has an unusually small amount of precedence cited. Yet, the dissenting opinion contains vast references to cases both in-state and from federal jurisdiction.

  •  Although I haven't deciphered the legaleese (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amberglow

    I'm heartbroken. Truly heartbroken.

    "The political function of rights is to protect the minority, (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" -Ayn Rand

    by Kaity on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:05:10 AM PDT

  •  OT: NJ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brittain33, demkat620, tvb

    NJ Supreme Court is shutdown right now.. they won't rule "any day" until the government is back up.

  •  Keeler for State Senate! (6+ / 0-)

    The Court clearly stated that this issue is a matter for the legislature.  The NY Dems control the State Assembly, but the NY Repubs have a four seat advantage.

    Considering how strong the Dems will at the top of the ticket in '06 (with Hillary and Sptizer), they are well positioned to retake the State Senate and have the majorities they need to pass gay marriage legislation.  One way you can help is by supporting long-time Kossack Brian Keeler who is running for NY Senate against a Repub incumbent in a district that could easily go Dem (the district voted strongly for Kerry, I believe).

    So, if you care about this issue, this is yet another good reason to support Brian Keeler.  Consider going to his website (linked above), and donating $$ or volunteering or otherwise helping.

    The way to change the country is to win elections.

    by pontificator on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:15:28 AM PDT

    •  I agree fully (0+ / 0-)

      I would like to see gay marriage recognized by a legislature or referendum so the bullshit "activist court" crap by the right can be destroyed.  

      NY is as good as a place to do it, with only 33% opposing equal marriage.

  •  Here is a link to an article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amberglow

    Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

    by Democratic Hawk on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:19:48 AM PDT

  •  Judge Kaye is right: 'unfortunate misstep' ... (0+ / 0-)

    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." "

  •  4 of the justices were appointed by Pataki (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amberglow

    meaning this isn't that surprsing a rulling. Its bad law especiallly given what others above are saying b/c it creates a false distinction in the law - even amongst straight couples

  •  Silver Lining, Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

    I am by no means intimately familiar with local New York politics.  However, I get the impression that the New York legislature is about as likely as any legislature to approve a gay marriage bill (excepting California, of course, which has already done so).  And in a few short months, Governor Spitzer would sign such a bill.  While that may not be useful to someone in New York who wants to get married now, the sooner we get same-sex marriage somewhere via the legislative process the better - that will be a major milestone.  It will partially blunt the "activist judges!" line.

    This process is a long one and is not likely to be won by the Hail Mary of a Loving-style USSC overturning of the illegality/non-recognition of same-sex marriage that exists in most jurisdictions.  Civil unions in Vermont was a milestone.  Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was a milestone.  Civil unions in Connecticut - passed legislatively without direction by a court - was a milestone.  Even same-sex marriage in Europe, Canada and, soon, South Africa, are important milestones as all of these things play a part in eroding the knee-jerk fear of same-sex marriage.

    I eagerly await the day a same-sex marriage bill passes both houses of a legislature and is then signed by a Governor for the first time - and I think New York is a likely candidate for such a happenstance.  It will be a very important victory towards the ultimate goal - same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

    •  Only if the Dems take the Senate (0+ / 0-)

      As another poster said above, the only way the NY Legislature will ever pass a same-sex marriage bill is for the Dems to take control of the State Senate.  Joe Bruno, the current Senate Majority Leader, will NEVER in a million years allow a bill to come to the floor.  

      Even if he did, it's an uphill battle.  People like to think of NY state as being super-blue, and it is, but the truth is outside of NYC it can get pretty damn conservative.  If NYC were a state unto itself (hey, I can dream, can't I?), then I'm sure we'd have it already.

      •  So I See (0+ / 0-)

        As I said, I am not particularly familiar with New York state politics.  I did google Joe Bruno, though, and learned a little.  Too bad about the Senate - New York is Blue enough that it should not be in GOP hands.  It's a shame, as Spitzer looks like he'll be an exceptionally progressive Governor on the issue of same-sex marriage.

  •  Correction: (0+ / 0-)

    It's New York Court of Appeals.  NY Supreme Court (in our weird nomenclature) is actually the lowest level court, while the Court of Appeals is the highest court.  It is bizzarre, but that's the way it is.

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    where were you troll rated?

    the good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. -jane addams

    by bsmcneil on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:55:11 AM PDT

  •  And to add to the news (0+ / 0-)

    Georgia Supreme Court (as I predicted) reversed the lower level court and reinstaed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  The lower court held that the amendment violated the single subject rule when presented to voters.  The Georgia Supreme Court reversed.

    •  heh, that georgia amendment (0+ / 0-)

      showed how far people like the AFA will go to misrepresent the situation.  they took that ruling and were sending out emails saying that the Georgia courts were saying that the legislature couldn't ban gay marriage.

      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:26:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rally tonight (0+ / 0-)

    If you're a New Yorker, ESPA is trying to rally people tonight to protest the decision.  In NYC it's at 6 pm Sheridan Square.  Check out the website, www.prideagenda.org, for other cities.

    Pass it on!

  •  Well isn't this (0+ / 0-)

    s****y. I still don't get how this isn't a violation of the 14th Amendment.

    It sounds (or rather reads) like they are passing the issue off onto the Assembly. Way to abdicate your duty. It's not going to happen unless the Dems get the majority.

    I'll tell you one thing the right wing blowhards have correct. Gay marriage does effect straight marraige. My b/f and I decided a couple years ago, that we were not getting married as a protest against this treatment towards our fellow Americans.

    •  they decided it on rational basis (0+ / 0-)

      the issue of Loving came up.  However, they noted that gay marriage is different from interracial marriage in loving because, while there is no way to ban interracial marriage without an intent to discriminate, that isn't necessarily the case with gay marriage.

      They note that same-sex couples cannot have children together, and that makes such a relationship fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples, regardless whether there may be some specific examples of infertility within opposite-sex relationships.

      Webpage; # Members: 93,405 (as of 8:00pm 6/20). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 4, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:35:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know you went through this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amberglow

        upthread, so I feel really bad for asking this.

        How is it not discrimination? And how in the hell can they use procreation as an argument?

        It just doesn't make any sense.

      •  Your point needs explanation (0+ / 0-)

        I've noticed you make this same point a number of times upthread. (I just signed on and have been scrolling through).  You claim that there is a fundamental difference between the biological procreation by a mixed gender couple as opposed to other forms of procreation (adoption, artificial insemination) by other couples (both mixed and same gender).  What I do not understand is why this biological difference leads to a fundamental legal difference.  

        In both cases, a child is produced.  In one case it shares DNA from both parents. In the other case it does not. For purposes of worrying about providing stability to the relationship and protecting the child thus procreated, why is this a fundamental difference?

  •  TU, PU. (0+ / 0-)

    Enjoy the comedown. It will force you to be positive with everyone, and if you believe you are reading troll-bait, you can just as easily say so, without having to exert the pseudopower of TU status. Its just a blog.

    Read Jeffery Sachs' The End of Poverty.

    by shergald on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site