Because no LGBT joy can be left uninterupted, as anyone could have expected, the haters have started crying to "activist judges" that they want to undo the marriage equality law passed last month in the New York State.
The first in probably many nuisance lawsuits has been filed.
Fred Phelps and the National Organization for Marriage shared protest space
in mid-town Manhattan, from Good As You blog.
While Fred Phelps and the National Organization for Marriage took to the streets of Manhattan to stamp their feet in their sour grapes, others are hoping actvists judges will overturn the will of New York's duly elected officials.
Plaintiffs are the group, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who did everything possible to stop it before passage. Now, they are determined to keep fighting.
Plaintiffs are represented by the Liberty Counsel, a group that is dedicated to "restoring the culture by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family," and have filed a lawsuit claiming the the law was passed through an invalid process.
Rev. Jason J. McGuire
The lawsuit Rev. Jason J. McGuire, Executive Director, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said, “Constitutional liberties were violated. Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature.” From their website, the suit aledges:
- meetings that violated New York State Open Meetings Laws.
the suspension of normal Senate voting procedures to prevent Senators who opposed the bill from speaking.
- failure to follow Senate procedures that require that a bill must be sent to appropriate committees prior to being placed before the full Senate for a vote.
- unprecedented Senate lock-outs by which lobbyists and the public were denied access to elected representatives.
- the Governor’s violation of the constitutionally mandated three-day review period before the Legislature votes on a bill by unjustifiably issuing a message of necessity.
- promises (which were fulfilled) by high-profile elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make large campaign contributions to Republican senators who switched their vote from opposing to supporting the Marriage Equality Act.
The Liberty Counsel's attorney, Rena Lindevaldsen, has a history, from Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:
Lindevaldsen has a long history of bringing such cases. According to her Liberty University School of Law biography, "She filed the first lawsuit to enjoin San Francisco's efforts to 'marry' same-sex couples, and obtained two orders enjoining public officials in New York from officiating same-sex unions. She successfully challenged New York City's decision to publicly fund a high school for homosexual students and a Maryland school board’s decision to implement sex education curriculum that presented materials hostile to conservative, religious beliefs. In addition to her efforts to protect children and families, she regularly provided representation to Child Evangelism Fellowship in its efforts to gain access to public schools for after-school Good News Clubs."
Thomas Kaplan of the New York Times, reports on that a spokesperson for Governor Cuomo, Josh Vlasto said the suit is without merit and that,
"The plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the state of New York."
But, but, they're "New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms!" Aren't they experts on laws and the Constitution?
Spokesmen for the Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, and the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, declined to comment to the Times.
I don't personally worry much about it. I'm sure it's without merit. I do find it interesting how the courts are decried as an invalid process, when marriage equality is made law that way in states like Iowa and Connecticut and others. But when things don't go their way, it's the first place opponents run to. Like National Organization for Marriage fighting a campaign disclosure law, all the way to the Supreme Court.
We see this in DC too, where opponents continue to file baseless and futile lawsuits to stop marriage equality a year later. Also, conservatives love local rule, until the locality goes off book, then the House of Representatives seeks to tell DC how to govern it's own district.
There's really just so much Orwellian newspeak coming out of this crowd. "Protecting Constitutional freedoms" by infringing on New Yorker's civil rights. "Protecting families" by creating a more difficult environment for some families to thrive. Families like Sheila and Cathy Marino-Thomas, seen below with their daughter Jackie (right).
Or how about this lovely picture from the Wall Street Journal? Pictured are John Feinblatt (R) and Jonathan Mintz (L), two Bloomberg senior staffers that the Mayor wed at Gracie Mansion yesterday.
Somehow I don't think the Liberty Counsel is invested in doing what's best for these two lovely girls, who are clearly lucky to have two devoted and dotting fathers.
And of course, these "conservative" groups have no concerns about wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the state against frivolous lawsuits that spring from their lacking a "basic understanding of the law." See what we have to put up with?
Another Times reporter, Nick Confessore shares his summary of the plaintiff's case Twitter:
Broad takeaway from suit: #ssm would never have passed if Albany weren't so secretive, undemocratic, leader-driven. Paging Blair Horner!
Well, that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers wanted it to pass as well.
A PDF of the group's complaint can be found here.
Update
Jeremy Hooper at
Good As You blog has some informative background on the plaintiff in this lawsuit. In the past Rev. McGuire has been quoted saying:
"When a child grows up under an abusive father, it is very difficult for the child to grow up to understand a loving heavenly father. My fear is that what happens culturally, with the issue of same-sex marriage, is... a generation from now we look back and it will be that much more difficult for a generation of young people that have grown up to look back and recognize the relationship between Christ and the church."
Yes, the good reverend seems deeply concerned about the Constitution and the Democratic principles of good government.
Nothing to do with instituting a theocratic agenda for New York.