Observer Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 NY court rules against gay marriage THE ASSOCIATED PRESS July 6, 2006, 11:42 AM EDT ALBANY -- New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote. The New York ruling is part of an evolving mosaic on the volatile issue nationwide. Georgia's top court reinstated that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday and high courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts. But 45 states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right" since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition." "It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors." Burke and her partner of seven years, Tonja Alvis, are raising her 11-year-old son. Gov. George Pataki's health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office had argued New York law prohibits issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts. "I am satisfied that today's decision by the state's highest court to uphold our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is the right one," Pataki, a Republican, said in a statement. "I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage." The judges declined to follow the lead of high court judges in neighboring Massachusetts, who ruled that same-sex couples in that state have the same right to wed as straight couples. The four cases decided Thursday were filed two years ago when the Massachusetts decision helped usher in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco. In New York, the mayor of the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz married about two dozen gay couples in February 2004. With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs in the suits, including the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell -- Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell -- and his longtime partner. Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law. "We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us." 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. She 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. "This state has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the court today retreats from that proud tradition," she wrote. "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." Attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued on behalf of 13 couples in one of the cases, said the court's decision leaves her clients with nowhere to go but the Legislature. Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group, said his organization would immediately begin a campaign to press Albany to pass a gay marriage bill in 2007. Spitzer, a Democrat leading in recent polls in the governor's race, has said he favors legalizing gay marriage. Judge Albert Rosenblatt, whose daughter has advocated for same-sex couples in California, did not take part in the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban Jul 06 11:14 AM US/Eastern By SHANNON McCAFFREY Associated Press Writer ATLANTA The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban. The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single- subject rule for ballot measures. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County had ruled that it did. Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdawg16 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Sounds good to me. I am suprised that out of all the places it was NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeuceChunker03 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Looking forward to the day America grows up... :thumbdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokes22 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Originally posted by DeuceChunker03Looking forward to the day America grows up... :thumbdown: As am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdawg16 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Grows up? Please go on your rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeuceChunker03 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 We've been over this a thousand times. What does it matter to you if two guys or two girls want to get married? How in the world does that effect you in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdawg16 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 So we as a nation should just tolerate everything? Where do you draw a line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeuceChunker03 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Hmmm... I think that was said back when the schools were integrated. In thirty years, the history books will show the bigotry of the right towards homosexuals. I don't think you should have to "tolerate" homosexuality. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and if you can't "tolerate" people that are different than you, you are nothing more than a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdawg16 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I am not going to reply as my blood is already boiling today for reasons other than this post and it would probably get me into more trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 As far as I'm concerned . . . gays should have stayed IN the closet! :whistle::w00t::whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 Originally posted by DeuceChunker03Hmmm... I think that was said back when the schools were integrated. In thirty years, the history books will show the bigotry of the right towards homosexuals. I don't think you should have to "tolerate" homosexuality. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and if you can't "tolerate" people that are different than you, you are nothing more than a bigot. The Right.... funny.... I seem to remember names like Byrd, Gore....etc... on the roles of voting against integration... My how history changes when the Left gets to type.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sideliner Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Always trying to twist things up to suit your ideals......Say it ain't so............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 Originally posted by SidelinerAlways trying to twist things up to suit your ideals......Say it ain't so............. Sideliner.... Why not refute what I post... O.. you can't... ITS TRUE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptrick77 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Would this go under the catagory of activist judges ??? :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Originally posted by DeuceChunker03We've been over this a thousand times. What does it matter to you if two guys or two girls want to get married? How in the world does that effect you in any way? Because of the history. Every nation that was once in power over the years declined due to economic/finances, fighting ability and homosexuality. A great example is the Roman Empire. The key though about the ban of gay marriage is because of health insurance lobbyist. Gay marriage between 2 men is at least 2-10 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual couple. If gay marriage was allowed, the health industry would LOSE billions and it wold be a lose-lose situation for both the patient and the doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threejs Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Originally posted by DeuceChunker03We've been over this a thousand times. What does it matter to you if two guys or two girls want to get married? How in the world does that effect you in any way? Do we open the marriages up for father/daughter, brother/sister, brother/brother, mom/son? What about polygamy? Could we solve the estate tax issue by the kids marrying mom AND dad?? Keep in mind - how in the world does that effect you in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Originally posted by threejsDo we open the marriages up for father/daughter, brother/sister, brother/brother, mom/son? I hardly see how you can compare incest with homosexuality! One cant have children and the other would have retarded children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Really, what is the problem with same-sex marriages? It doesn't make sense to me why people would oppose gay marriage. Can someone please give me a logical reason why we should ban gay marriage? I don't want statistics, and I don't want religious ideals (because they don't mean anything). I want an actual reason about why it is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threejs Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Originally posted by strawberry66I hardly see how you can compare incest with homosexuality! One cant have children and the other would have retarded children. My point is that the same reasons people give when defending same sex marriage can actually be used in support of all other marriages. That can't be for 1 and against the other and stay true to their worldview. Maybe I should have stuck with "polygamy". I have yet to see a same sex marriage proponent give a logical reason against having more than 1 spouse. Aren't we marginalizing bisexuals? Shouldn't they have the right to choose BOTH sexes as their marriage partners according to their line of reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Originally posted by threejs My point is that the same reasons people give when defending same sex marriage can actually be used in support of all other marriages. That can't be for 1 and against the other and stay true to their worldview. Maybe I should have stuck with "polygamy". I have yet to see a same sex marriage proponent give a logical reason against having more than 1 spouse. Aren't we marginalizing bisexuals? Shouldn't they have the right to choose BOTH sexes as their marriage partners according to their line of reasoning? Wasnt there a time when a White could not marry a Black? Times change! It's up to God if it's wrong. Not you and me or the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by woodgie07Really, what is the problem with same-sex marriages? It doesn't make sense to me why people would oppose gay marriage. Can someone please give me a logical reason why we should ban gay marriage? I don't want statistics, and I don't want religious ideals (because they don't mean anything). I want an actual reason about why it is bad. Reread my post... The part about the health insurance lobbyists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by DLine06 Originally posted by DeuceChunker03We've been over this a thousand times. What does it matter to you if two guys or two girls want to get married? How in the world does that effect you in any way? Because of the history. Every nation that was once in power over the years declined due to economic/finances, fighting ability and homosexuality. A great example is the Roman Empire. The key though about the ban of gay marriage is because of health insurance lobbyist. Gay marriage between 2 men is at least 2-10 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual couple. If gay marriage was allowed, the health industry would LOSE billions and it wold be a lose-lose situation for both the patient and the doctor. woodgie, reread my portion of the quoted post and see if that makes any sense. Perspective on political issues is not thinking with a closed-mind but rathe serveral different angles. I'm not using the Christian method but rather a medical and financial reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 How are gay men any more likely to contract HIV when they are married as opposed to when they are sleeping around with several partners? That makes no sense at all. If anything, this would make the HIV rate go down, thus helping the health industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by woodgie07Really, what is the problem with same-sex marriages? It doesn't make sense to me why people would oppose gay marriage. Can someone please give me a logical reason why we should ban gay marriage? I don't want statistics, and I don't want religious ideals (because they don't mean anything). I want an actual reason about why it is bad. How about it's not natural. It destroys the core family and is counterproductive for society. It's easy to dismiss God's plan because it's meaningless to you at this point in your life, but you can't truly understand this issue and many other moral issues when you totally reject God. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now