Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor’s legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor’s spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York’s human rights law, Duggan said.
Slowly, gradually, as each timorous reactionary whimper dissipates, another class of 2nd-class citizenship continues to end in this land.
#30 Mr Mustard
So you’re sicken… get used to it you pompous turd sniffer. I’m talking about the last 25 years of poofers doing what they want then when it hits the fan they blame anyone but themselves and demand special treatment.
Then as a thank you we get this in your face give us what we want or you’re a bigot. Sometimes you gotta say enough is enough.
Seems like a pretty cut and dry state issue to me. I may not support it but New Yorkers have the right to recognize what kind of marriages are allowed in their state. What I would not support is a federal law coming down and trying to take over what is obviously a state issue.
26 Mister Mastard
“That’s the great thing about living in the land of the free, the home of the brave: If you think a lifestyle is creepy, don’t fucking live it.”
Agreed. And, of course, that includes not having to live it as school indoctrination or on bus billboards, etc. all extolling the natural beauty and wonder of homosexual relationships in the face of a half billion years of evolution-inspired sexual reproduction.
Under the right circumstances, people will buy into anything.
RBG
>>So you’re sicken… get used to it you pompous
>>turd sniffer.
Heheh. Heheheheheh. I’m afraid YOU’RE the one who’s going to have to “get used to it”. Prepare to be “sicken”.
All Americans will someday be granted equal rights, and that day is coming soon. So if you don’t like the pole smokers or the rump wranglers or the muff munchers, that’s just tfb.
Other than driving you out of the closet, there’s nothing in their lifestyle that has any negative impact on your lifestyle.
And in a free America (as disgusting as that notion may be to the right wing nuts), everyone is free to pursue happiness.
Maybe you should go buy a rifle, and do what your anti-choice “pro-life” bretheren do – shoot those with whom they disagree.
(I just KNOW you’re a closet homo. Tee hee, titter titter!)
Mustard, yes, we did have a go-around about this last week. I’m not sure of how the issue arose but it makes no difference in the effect of the outcome. The court is still legislating the long held and “original intent” of what the term marriage means. Yes, the USSC did not do that for what it means to be “human”–had to wait for the 13th & 14th amendment. The USSC DID do it for the “penumbra of privacy” regarding the right to an abortion==they found new rights in old words.
Now, I am a strict constructionist so I am offended any court that makes stuff up absent a direct application of “basic human rights.” Those basic human rights are somewhat like the abortion ruling==the right to be left alone, as when gays live together and contract and do all normal things.
Whether they struck down a law, or ruled on an old law, the Ca SC is still creating new rights better left to the legislature.
#30 “Bobbi, haven’t we been over this a million times already? The court didn’t “find new rights”, it overturned a discriminatory, homophobic law banning something that was never banned before.”
What was banned? Marriage has never ben between anything other than men and a women. You cannot ban something that doesn’t exist. You can redefine it (which is the job of the legislature), but until that is done, this argument that it is discriminatory to ban “gay” marriage is nonsense.
#37–Mustard–I don’t support the law. The LEGISLATURE, or the people by referundum, should change it==not the courts.
Actually, marriage should only be between man and woman. Society has too little interest in making a noisy minority the same as something it is not the same as. Civil Unions with all equality to marriage is a way those who care can go right now with no violence to common sense, history, and sound jurisprudence.
But, with Ca and New York knocked off the list, the change is upon us. No big deal in actual fact, just a discussion point.
These recent court rulings just illustrate how mentally deficient these people are about what should be fundamental premises of how things work.
The legislature creates a new legal status with associated privileges and then defines the conditions to qualify for that status. If the court in its “wisdom,” for whatever dubious reason, finds that this created status is discriminatory, the legitimate remedy would be to disallow the discriminatory status. If civil marriage as it is defined is discriminatory, then the court should disallow civil marriage. It is NOT the legitimate power of the court to decide, on its own without the consent of the legislature, to expand or redefine something that it did not have original authority to create.
Mister Mustard said
>>most conservative males are closet homos
That certainly seems to be a valid point, although not all of them manage to stay in the closet.
Especially if they have ‘a wide stance’.
J/P=?
#39–Sea Lawyer==excellent point. Almost makes me want to read the original case (some 170 pages long I think someone said) to see if that was the basis of their ruling? It does sound like they did what you say but I doubt you have read the case yet either?
Astounds me that “some people” can’t get the procedure used as a separate issue from the decision reached WHEN its an outcome they like.
Is it conscious manipulation, or just lockstep stupidity. Mustard would be a good source for this if he weren’t in lockstep with his own ad hoc dictionary.
Keep your good stuff coming.
#41, that’s why your arguments fail, because you don’t understand what it is you are talking about.
Speaking of “rights” it is interesting the Texas Court saying their State does not have the right to step in as they did with a blanket removal of all the polygamy kids.
Once again==procedural over just ends?
Just from the news reports, AND MY BIAS, sure looks like the Texas S Ct is elevating parental rights over kiddie safety.
Boy, this topic brings ’em out.
I say that the church and state should be separate, and the state should simply recognize marriages made in a church, mosque, or temple (or house of Elvis for the atheists among us), since marriage is a religiously defined item anyhow. It’s a bond between two people and God (or Elvis), and the state should butt out deciding who gets married.
But of course, there are houses of worship that would marry two men, or two women, because religion isn’t nearly as lockstep as some religious people would like everyone else to be. Such a shame that lazy people try to save themselves the trouble of walking in another’s footsteps by forcing them to behave just as they do.
#45–Li==if church and state were separate, wouldn’t the state do “nothing” regarding religion?–ie, not recognize or not not recognize marriage or divorce within a religion? That would be up to the religion.
However, the State does recognize and sanction marriage expressly by statutue. Just because they use the same term “marriage” does not mean it is equivalent in any other way.
From here, I can only repeat myself.
If thee guys aren’t getting married they should at least get a room.
http://tinyurl.com/4nxu29
Bobbo,
All right then, let’s say that I concede you are right, and that a true separation wouldn’t make any governmental recognition of marriage. That wouldn’t be as bad as an arbitrary standard for privileges, certainly . .
“However, the State does recognize and sanction marriage expressly by statutue. Just because they use the same term “marriage” does not mean it is equivalent in any other way.”
Ah, but if, as I forced you to admit, marriage is essentially a secular institution, then lacking moral stricture against two men or women marrying, and getting the inheritance, hospital visitation, and insurance benefits thereof, what business or interest does the state have in stopping that?
“Actually, marriage should only be between man and woman. Society has too little interest in making a noisy minority the same as something it is not the same as.”
How can you justify this statement without religious moral stricture to back up the actions of the state regarding what is (as you admit) a secular contract? And don’t give me that civil union crap, separate is not equal, and that is already well established in case law.
I think a lot of people confuse freedom and rights with licentious behavior. The old “if it feels good to you, do it” routine. That leads to anarchy. You know, like a Democratic president.
Mustard,
Good arguments
#9, frak,
Doesn’t it bother anyone that this is legislation from the bench? The majority of Californians voted against this. The court has subverted the process.
No. The court did its job. The Court was asked to validate the law as it pertained to the California Constitution. They found it violated the Constitution. Therefore it is null and void. The Constitution does not allow discrimination between classes of people.
Mustards analogy of a new initiative to enslave or otherwise second class all blacks is a good point. Even if a majority of people thought it a good idea, the Constitution says it can’t happen and such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. This would not garner any new rights for blacks or take away any rights for non-blacks. It only puts everyone on an equal footing.
Bobbo,
Your arguments are getting really fucking retarded. My eight y/o wants to know if your mother had any kids that lived or is your gay brother an only child. I’m wondering how she can have such a healthy outlook while you and SL are so blind. I think tootie is just plain afraid to come out of the closet.
34 Mister Mustard
“All Americans will someday be granted equal rights, and that day is coming soon. So if you don’t like the pole smokers or the rump wranglers or the muff munchers, that’s just tfb.”
I actually agree with you… except:
You can’t arbitrarily stop just there. Those same basic individual rights must then also extend to the concept of polygamous marriages, marriages between 2 men and 2 women – in fact whatever creative arrangement legally to be called a marriage that free-thinking autonomous people might want to enter into. This will dilute marriage to the point that the idea of a “marriage” – just like the biological heterosexuals have – will not be worth defending.
It also should be apparent by now that no matter whatever rights appear to be enshrined in a constitution, judges of the highest court somehow always manage to bend, change and justify laws according to whichever way the overwhelming pressure from society pushes them.
Thus, for example, there is real fear that seemingly settled legislation such as Roe vs Wade is in jeopardy of being severely undermined if not overturned.
With respect to homosexual marriages, if an overwhelming case is never made in support of the biological basis for homosexuality itself, that will completely color how society sees homosexual marriages, and subsequently the law of the land will change accordingly. Until then, the underlying basis for homosexual marriage is completely artificial. It would equally be fun to create laws that recognize that we can all fly.
As much as the Law appears to sometimes be able to run independent from such things as science and physics, eventually the Law is forced to catch up as it did for King Canute.
Similarly, the legal, artificial definition of marriage can only pretend for so long to ignore the primary biological force of nature that is 500 million years of heterosexual evolution.
In the long run, the transient law of the land will find itself no match for such laws of nature. And like that other big social flop that once saw psychologists advocating boys act like girls and vice versa, the idea that homosexuality is some kind of natural condition to be embraced by parents and children will also flop.
RBG
Calls to the function of natural law are moldy remnants of Aquinas ‘s lunch. I’ll pass, especially since science that isn’t 1000 years old recognizes the presence of homosexual behavior in a variety of social creatures. The evolutionary function isn’t clear, but the fact that these couples often care for orphaned penguin chicks (for a well documented instance) might explain the benefit to the genetic health of the community.
#48–Li==you have me a bit confused==as if YOU continue to mix the “marriage” of civil law, with the “marriage” of religion?
As the very term “marriage” demonstrates, all of the various issues are very mixed up.
Society does regulate civil marriage and they have done so by legislation. Men are different from women. They share all rights, but have to earn/qualify for many privileges. These in the main recognize the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES THAT DO EXIST IN FACT.
Now, “unions” between men and women have rights and all those rights also are enjoyed by gay couples. But the privileges are also earned/qualified and the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between these two groups is real and does EXIST IN FACT.
You may argue the differences shouldn’t have a meaning, but in the area of “marriage” that has until the last 3 years been determined by the legislature. If you want the courts to legislate from the bench====ok===just admit thats what you’re doing.
Gawd–no actual argument so you put words into your 8 year olds mouth? Probably seeking a more mature spokesman? Think of something substantive to post, and you might get an education.
#52 RBG wrote, “Similarly, the legal, artificial definition of marriage can only pretend for so long to ignore the primary biological force of nature that is 500 million years of heterosexual evolution. In the long run, the transient law of the land will find itself no match for such laws of nature.”
Well RBG, if that’s the case for homosexual marriage, then it may also be the case for heterosexual marriage as well, since those 500 million years of evolution also infused humans with more than a little tendency toward promiscuous sexual behavior. Monogamous marriage of either variety is a social and legal contract that repudiates the naturally occurring biological tendency towards such straying behavior. In this regard, the case can be made that monogamous marriage of any kind is unnatural, but it certainly has its charm (photographers and caterers all seem to love it).
#54 – bobbo,
Are you still on that legislate from the bench argument? I thought we put that to bed several threads ago.
It most certainly is the job of the courts to determine constitutionality of laws. It’s called checks and balances.
If not for this responsibility of the courts, how exactly would you have them put a check on the other two branches of government?
And, if not the courts, exactly whom would you charge with enforcing that laws meet the test of constitutionality?
Throwing out bad laws is not legislating. It sets precedents but does not become statute.
BTW, has it occurred to anyone else that if the two statues of liberty are going to be joined in wedlock, we should remember that the other is not in Massachusetts. It’s in Paris. The French gave us one as a gift and kept the other.
Trivia: The framework of lady liberty was designed by the same man who went on to design a fair size radio antenna, Eiffel.
#52 – RBG,
Similarly, the legal, artificial definition of marriage can only pretend for so long to ignore the primary biological force of nature that is 500 million years of heterosexual evolution.
Hmm… So, what exactly is your opinion on why homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, and not just in our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, but in wolves, gulls, and a tremendous number of other species, all of which have a statistically significant amount of homosexuality?
Homosexuality in Animals
Bobbo, in California they tried to do a compromise of civil unions, and the courts used that to say the state was discriminating.
#56–Scott==yep, still on it. Haven’t heard any really good arguments against it. Like yours?
I don’t want to keep you up past bed time, so I won’t expect a return post except maybe tomorrow.
Courts are checked and balanced by Constitutional Amendment and by Legislative Statutes limiting their subject matter review and I forget how FDR packed the court with more liberals–ie, just how the number of judges is set.
That said, the CHIEF check and balance of the Court is supposed to be themselves with their lifetime appointments so they do their job regardless of public sentiment. They aren’t supposed to “do whats right” they are supposed to interpret according to its clear intent and apply precedent.
The reason these cases are newsworthy is that the rulings are changing 230 years of US Law. Now, where is that change coming from? From Legislation?==no. From the bench?==yes. They aren’t supposed to do that.
Certainly all three branches pledge to support the Constitution and the court helps by reviewing laws. Now, practically speaking, whatever the court says is the final word==but unless you think that somehow the court is never wrong (Bush v Gore anyone?) then it remains “fair” to discuss their errors.
This is CLEARLY one of them. Although, I guess I should read the case before I conclude that? Anyone read the case yet??????
#58–Mike==I agree or close enough. And it is discrimination. But the question remains is the discrimination illegal or not? Under the precedent of the law, clearly not. Making a change to this well settled area of the law after 230 years is as clear a case of legislating from the bench as you can find. (or 150 years for California?)
Gay Marriage causes Global Warming.
Actually, the one in California was overturning 3 years of law, not 230. It was a brand spanking new law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. No such California law had existed before.
They aren’t supposed to “do whats right” they are supposed to interpret according to its clear intent and apply precedent.
Actually, interpreting clear intent is an important bit. As the moral zeitgeist changes to include more and more people as Us, hopefully one day including everyone, we must extend the existing rights to include more and more people.
It really is that simple. The original constitution did not count native Americans in the census and only counted slaves as a third of a person each.
So, that had to be determined to be against the intent of the constitution even though it was explicitly in the constitution. We now at least attempt to extend full rights to native Americans, African Americans, and many other minorities.
Why not the LBGT community?
Why not atheists?
It’s time to include everyone. The courts really can make that call. It’s not legislation unless they write a law. Setting legal precedent and determining constitutionality are exactly the jobs of the courts.
Oh, and just a guess, any judges appointed by FDR are probably dead already. The current courts are chock full of neocon right wing nut jobs, especially the supremes.
>>The reason these cases are newsworthy is
>>that the rulings are changing 230 years
>>of US Law.
Bobster, wtf are you gibbering about?? Proposition 22 (also known as the “Knight Initiative”, after its homophobic sponsor) was passed in 2000, not 1778.
Maybe my pocket calculator is malfunctioning, but I don’t think that 2008 minus 230 equals 2000. I guess you’re not an accountant.
Why on earth you perseverate with this “legislating from the bench” and “overturning centuries of US law” nonsense is beyond me. Do you just hate gays and lesbians, or do you think you actually have a valid point?
You should get more sleep, Junior Logician. Your pretzel logic is starting to look like a bowl of spaghetti.