"New York court says yes to gay marriage"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

New York court says yes to gay marriage

Two days after George W. Bush renewed his call for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a court in New York has just ruled that gay men and lesbians in that state must be granted the right to marry.

The court's decision, which comes in a case the Lambda Legal Foundation filed on behalf of five same-sex couples, says that the state's constitution guarantees gay men and lesbians the same basic freedoms available to heterosexuals --- and that those rights are violated when the state denies marriage licenses to gay couples.

We talked briefly this morning with Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Lambda, who was 22 pages into the 62-page decision. His early take: The decision relies on legal reasoning similar to that followed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when it ruled in favor of marriage equality, but this one may be "stronger and more solidly worded."

In a statement emailed to reporters, Lambda attorney Susan Sommer called the decision a "historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers." She said that the court "recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law. Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

The decision comes from the New York Supreme Court, which, contrary to what its name suggests, is not the state's highest court. An appeal can be made to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and then to New York's Court of Appeals. Today's ruling is a beginning in New York, but it's a long way from an end.

From Salon.com btw.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

This sounds like a fantastic ruling btw. Here is the entire decision in pdf form.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

i cant wait to get married

― phil-two (phil-two), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

whooo! now if we could only turn over the cabaret laws...

― the polo grounds (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Here is the entire decision as acted out be Tom of Finland characters.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

DOWN WITH PROHIBITION, John Barleycorn Must LIVE!

― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex, from what I've read so far, it looks like a good ruling but I fear that this will simply increase the impetus for a Constitutional Amendment in the Bush camp.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It may very well do so, but I don't think anything is to be gained by pussyfooting around the issue at this point.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

haha he said "impetus"

― the polo grounds (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)

More backlash to come. Look for Rodhamclinton and Schumer to cower.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

wonder what daisy cheney has to say about this...

― the polo grounds (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you may be right. This may turn out to backfire on the Repubs in the long run. They show themselves to be hypocrites about limited government and they come across looking both mean and cravenly behoven to reactionary fanatics.

xxpost

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people need to focus more on the fact that these people are trying to pass an amendment that denies people rights; in particular, messages should be sent out to minority groups that reinforce that these tactics are essentially rolling out the carpet for leadership by the Klan.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Meanwhile, this is the gay-related story linked on the front page of CNN.com.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

"pumping parties"??

― phil-two (phil-two), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I was hoping that link was more about Buster and PBS, but no. . .

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 February 2005 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.nexternal.com/nj/images/743452058839F.jpg

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 4 February 2005 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

hahahahaha "As Seen On NBC"!!!

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 4 February 2005 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

but seriously dudes, congratulations!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 4 February 2005 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)

New York Court says "Yes...YES...YEEEEEESSSSSSSS" to gay marriage.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 4 February 2005 21:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Woot!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 4 February 2005 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)

ten months pass...

Change this to "New York Court says "no" to gay marriage.

In a particularly infuriating and reactionary way.

"The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing," they said, adding:

"Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision."

― Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

ALL CHILDLESS MARRIED COUPLE OFF THE PLANET BY TUESDAY.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

Just wait, we'll have anti-"deliberate childlessness" laws on the books soon!

― kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:06 (twenty years ago)

I try to save the word "outrageous," but uh, I think it's outrageouos for the court to state that a law that has huge and demonstrable adverse effects for a defined segment of the people, and only alleged (and I'd say totally specious) benefits ('it protects kids...and SOCIETY!') meets even the low bar of rationality. It's... GAAAAH!

Hunter to Appellate Division: DROP DEAD.

― Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

I don't understand what the paragraph about Bloomberg means in the story.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:25 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.