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.
>>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.
Bobbolina, I think you’re confusing your Supreme Courts.
According to Wiki-whatever, the Justices of the California Supreme Court “are subject to a retention vote at the next general election, and thereafter each twelve years.
A faulty premise will most likely lead to a faulty conclusion. Didn’t you learn that in Logic School?
I’d like to go on record saying that I am very fond of lesbians. I too am a fan of the whiskered biscuit.
Ketchup, you horny bastard!
#65 – Yes sir!
These are really exciting times. We’ve reached a critical point in our society where the balance of power and population opinion has overcome the inertia of hate and fear.
Combine gay acceptance with the loss of the military Bush regime and we may just have mass suicide of the religious right. Oh my. What do we do with all the bodies? Can we raise enough lions to eat them? This is a crisis brewing.
#59, Boobo
The reason these cases are newsworthy is that the rulings are changing 230 years of US Law.
Nope. This ruling actually enforces the California Constitution after an ill fated attempt at some illegal legislation.
… the question remains is the discrimination illegal or not?
And the Court said this discrimination is illegal because it can not be demonstrated to be in the publics best interest or satisfy a public safety issue.
There is no evidence that the public will be endangered by gay marriage. The benefit to society of same sex marriage is the same as a heterosexual couple that can’t / won’t bear children. So why should they be discriminated against? What, because you think there is 4,000 years of tradition? Because your parents are a couple of nice guys you think every child should have heterosexual parents?
You have several times said this is legislating from the bench. Yet you have yet to explain that factually. So many others have attempted to set you straight. I don’t understand your problem. Maybe it is just plain homophobic behavior. Your sort will never appreciate the trees because that damn forest keeps getting in the way.
BTW, my kid thinks you’re a dweeb. I agree with her for a different reason. You must be carrying a lot of baggage to want to stop loving couples from sharing something you take for granted.
Mr. Gawd Almighty wrote, “There is no evidence that the public will be endangered by gay marriage.”
You might be overlooking the distinct possibility that certain peoples’ heads could explode over this. However, if we can coordinate the timing so that it happens on the 4th of July, perhaps the extra fireworks will be a benefit đ
#57 Misanthropic Scott
Hmm⊠So, what exactly is your opinion on why homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom”
What exactly is your opinion on why your dog humps your leg? Because it is actually trying to sexually mate with you and produce little Scottie dogs? Or do you think it more likely to be a tad confused, a by-product of innate sexual behavior?
55 Gary the Infidel. “…, since those 500 million years of evolution also infused humans with more than a little tendency toward promiscuous sexual behavior.”
And apparently the natural tendency for inter-species sex if above is any indication. Not to mention sex with animals by some humans; and every manner of weird sexual activity your mother never taught you. Well, actually even with mothers… & the the dead for that matter. Even the extreme of suicide against all self-preservation instincts build in by evolution. In fact, humans have shown quite capable of overriding such instincts as is jokingly illustrated by the Darwin Awards. Given the right circumstances and pressures, people are capable of just about anything. But all within the usual background of natural sexual programming. Nature vs nurture. I’m saying it is naturally legitimate to have our laws give the nature part a little more recognition. Not the least would be a little more natural stability for children.
RBG
>>What do we do with all the bodies? Can we
>>raise enough lions to eat them? This is a
>>crisis brewing.
Mission Accomplished!!
Bobbo’s running circles around you guys. That California passed a law recently saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is because most people assume that judges aren’t so dumb they need that spelled out for them. Nevertheless, these judges have decided things would be great if we had 2 guys or gals get together and call that marriage as well.
That is legislating from the bench.
>>Not the least would be a little more
>>natural stability for children.
Yeah. Heterosexual marriages are notoriously stable. HAW!
#70 – RBG,
So, by your own logic, much sexual behavior is innate and therefore natural and normal.
So, let’s not discriminate. Of course, your example is silly in the extreme, but does point out the wide range of natural sexuality. As noted in my prior post, homosexuality has been documented in over 1,500 species, and well documented in 500.
* Studies have shown that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are lesbian.
* The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species.
* Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between [American Bison] bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison
Cross species sex has also been documented. So, sex is not all about reproduction. That fact alone suggests strongly that marriage also need not be limited to those who can reproduce. I, for one, have been married 21 years without any resulting human larvae.
75 Misanthropic Scott. As I indicated, the inexorable natural sexual programming in animals (along with free-will in humans) will produce deviation from pre-programmed sexual behavior when environmental cues are ambiguous.
Just because something “happens” in life… such as murder, as an extreme example to make a point, doesn’t make it a natural behavior to be cherished and supported. I’m sure there are plenty of apparent homosexual behaviors in the wild for the reasons I cite. Exclusive homosexual behavior is a little more difficult to find.
But like the infamous homosexual penguins that “disappointingly” later broke up so one could pair heterosexually, I don’t really believe that has much to tell us about the human condition. Even in the face of Ellen’s former “mate” doing the same thing.
73 Mister Mustard
Yeah. Heterosexual marriages are notoriously stable.
Right, and homosexual culture and marriages are going to improve that for kids. Let me add my Haw.
RBG
So so far you’ve compared to men or women falling in love with each other with a dog humping someone’s leg, bestiality, or murder?
*lol*
Some truths bear repeating, and some falsehoods refute themselves.
#76 – RBG,
75 Misanthropic Scott. As I indicated, the inexorable natural sexual programming in animals (along with free-will in humans) will produce deviation from pre-programmed sexual behavior when environmental cues are ambiguous.
Shit!! I’m sorry. I just realized from this paragraph that you don’t believe in evolution. I didn’t realize I was wasting my time in this conversation.
Those who believe in evolution would not make a sharp distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We are part of a continuum, not specially created. Therefore, we vary in magnitude from other species, not in kind.
Your assertion that humans have free will, but the rest of the animal kingdom is subject only to the rules of that demented idea known as behaviorist psychology, shows either a very huge misunderstanding of evolution or a complete lack of believe in it.
Just because something âhappensâ in life⊠such as murder, as an extreme example to make a point, doesnât make it a natural behavior to be cherished and supported. Iâm sure there are plenty of apparent homosexual behaviors in the wild for the reasons I cite. Exclusive homosexual behavior is a little more difficult to find.
Did you really just compare a healthy normal consensual sexual relationship to murder?
Sorry, that is utter and complete crap! With murder there is a victim. Further, I could make a strong argument that your type of speech, by the fact that it denigrates a minority, actually has a large number of victims. Perhaps we should outlaw your style of rhetoric as well.
But, no, we protect people’s rights (for a little while longer) in this country. And, you are entitled to voice your opinion. So, just remember, the same laws that protect you in voicing your silly-assed viewpoint also protect the rights of the LBGT community.
>>Right, and homosexual culture and marriages
>>are going to improve that for kids.
Can’t do much worse than the hetero marriage tar pit we’ve fallen into to date, eh? Anything’s worth a try.
And when that try involves nothing more than allowing humans to exercise their rights and to pursue happiness, what the fuck’s the problem?
Are you some kind of commie, or what?
#38
> 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.
If businesses and government were forced to confer upon people joined via Civil Unions all the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, then I agree. Of course, were that the case, then Civil Unions and marriage would be identical in all but name.
#39
You have to be careful about what exactly you mean when you say that the Court can decide that marriages are discriminatory (which I agree). Such an allowance means that the Court is making the de facto mandate that marriage cannot be limited to male/female couples.
> Men are different from women.
> They share all rights, but
> have to earn/qualify for many
> privileges.
Government cannot create qualifications for privileges that discriminate without justification. For example, the government cannot create privileges that only apply to Caucasians. The question is whether the government can discriminate on sexual preference. If discrimination based on sexual preference via marriage is allowed, then IMO, that opens the door to providing other benefits based on whether you are heterosexual.
> Now, “unions” between men and women
> have rights and all those rights
> also are enjoyed by gay couples.
That all depends on what exactly you mean by those rights. Clearly they do not have the same privileges are heterosexual couples and therein lies the crux of the issue.
#59
That greatly depends on whether the original law was Constitutional. Just because a law has stood for many years does not it is constitutional. The “Under God” is a phrase in the Pledge is a good example. It has stood for 60 years and yet it is as unconstitutional now as when it was originally passed.
#72
That is a singular opinion. State’s cannot pass laws that arbitrarily discriminate against a group of people without justification. As I see, the only way the government can justify heterosexual marriage is if they use eugenics and that leads down a far darker path.
78 Mis Scott: “Your assertion that humans have free will, but the rest of the animal kingdom is subject only to the rules of that demented idea known as behaviorist psychology, shows either a very huge misunderstanding of evolution or a complete lack of believe in it.”
When I write “along with free-will in humans,” first, I am saying nothing about “free-will” in the rest of the animal kingdom. You made that part up. Second, when I refer specifically to “free-will in humans,” I’m referring to the free-will as I indicated earlier that allows humans to over-ride evolutionary behavioral programming. So out of curiosity, I take it you believe “free-will” in the rest of the animals would allow them to decide to commit suicide because they think they might get to heaven faster? Or do you now think there is a difference worth noting, like I did, between free-will between humans vs the rest of the animals?
Did you really just compare a healthy normal consensual sexual relationship to murder?
As we already established immediately above, you appear incapable of understanding subtle differences. Actually not-so-subtle differences too. So I made it “an extreme example” to make it impossible for you to disagree.
“Just because something âhappensâ… in life such as murder, as an extreme example to make a point, doesnât make it a natural behavior to be cherished and supported.”
I suppose I could have used “obsessive-compulsive disorder” as the example but that would have been too subtle. And there was always the danger that you cherish & support obsessive-compulsive behavior.
I’m dispelling the notion that because a type of behavior exists, it can be defended as natural therefore desireable. There is a range of those kinds of behaviors but that point, apparently, was also too subtle.
RBG
Too late to rejoin/invigorate the discussion but I want to thank Mister Mustard for correcting me on Post #63. Yes, the S Ct Justices in California are less protected than the SCOTUS. Thats how Rose Bird got kicked off after ruling the death penalty was unconstitutional==more legislating from the bench.
So–it is hard to keep all the distinctions in place as they are discussed.
>>Thats how Rose Bird got kicked off after ruling
>>the death penalty was unconstitutional==more
>>legislating from the bench.
Not really, Bobster. She was essentially an elected politician, and her pro-farmworker, anti-business, anti-death penalty views didn’t go over real well with the voters at the time. “Legislating from the bench” had nothing to do with her ouster.
And she didn’t overturn as unconsitutional a death penalty law (which would have made it analagous with the same-sex marriage case here); she just ruled repeatedly against giving the death penalty in the cases of individual murderers.
Although I am not an aficionado of the death penalty, I could see how one might stretch the actions of Bird (“failing to follow” existing law) with legislating from the bench. Better to have done what the Good Lord put the state Supreme Courts there for in the first place: Overturn unconstitutional laws as unconstitutional, don’t just fail to follow them.
There’s just nfw you can consider correctly overturning an unconstitutional California “proposition” for being unconsitutional as any sort of legislation from the bench. Not even close, Bubster.
In any case, tell me if I’ve got the summary here correct Bobbo: You are completely in favor of allowing same-sex MARRIAGES (not some sloppy-seconds/ back-of-the-bus alternative like “civil unions”); it’s just that you’re such a stickler for your view of the system of checks and balances and the role of the supreme courts that you object to the way in which this noble goal (freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all) is being achieved?
#81 – RBG,
So out of curiosity, I take it you believe âfree-willâ in the rest of the animals would allow them to decide to commit suicide because they think they might get to heaven faster? Or do you now think there is a difference worth noting, like I did, between free-will between humans vs the rest of the animals?
Commit suicide? Yes. Do so to get into heaven faster? I implied that they have free will, not that they are insane.
Did you really just compare a healthy normal consensual sexual relationship to murder?
As we already established immediately above, you appear incapable of understanding subtle differences. Actually not-so-subtle differences too. So I made it âan extreme exampleâ to make it impossible for you to disagree.
Your example, by being so extreme, is completely irrelevant in every possible way. If you think there is some similarity between consensual sex and murder, please state what it is. I literally do not understand what point you might have been making.
Iâm dispelling the notion that because a type of behavior exists, it can be defended as natural therefore desireable.[sic] There is a range of those kinds of behaviors but that point, apparently, was also too subtle.
OK, reading the rest of your post, I understand your point. And, here is why I strongly disagree. You seem to think that allowing something is encouraging it. You also seem to think that a behavior that hurts no one and provides pleasure to all concerned is somehow an aberrant behavior, akin to neuroses and personality disorders that actually do damage the individual with the condition.
If someone told me that they enjoyed their OCD and derived pleasure from it, I would say, “Cool!! Have a great obsessive and compulsive day.” This is typically not the case.
This is an extreme difference, and in no way subtly so, from homosexuality.
Homosexuality, unlike mental disorders, provides pleasure to those involved. So, rather than ask should we encourage such behavior, I would ask you why you feel the need to legislate against such behavior?
In fact, I hate to sound typical on the subject, but the obvious question in my mind is this:
If you have no intention of having sex with someone, why care who they have sex with?
And, to extend the question, why care whom they love and marry? Why deny them the same basic right to at least attempt to have a loving and fulfilling life? Most of us want to be able to pursue and hopefully find such a relationship. Why stop anyone else from finding the relationship that is right for them?
Oh, and by the way, yes murder is also natural. However, I think and hope that our laws are in place in an effort to discourage those natural behaviors that actually have victims. That makes a huge distinction.
#82 – bobbo,
I really am genuinely curious here. You continually refer to overturning unconstitutional laws as “legislating from the bench.”
Exactly what branch of government would you like to see enforcing the constitutionality of laws?
Or, do you believe the constitution is just a piece of paper with which one might otherwise wipe one’s ass?
So, it is clear to me that no court is writing statutory law. By definition, you are incorrect on this point.
I would still like to know what legal body should interpret laws and determine their constitutionality. This is a huge issue to me, especially given the current gutting of the constitution going on in this country.
85 MS: “You seem to think that allowing something is encouraging it.”
Then we are in agreement that just because our society tolerates something, such as religion, this says nothing of its legitimacy. An obvious point, but I needed to start somewhere with the homosexual issue.
You also seem to think that a behavior that hurts no one and provides pleasure to all concerned is somehow an aberrant behavior, akin to neuroses and personality disorders that actually do damage the individual with the condition.”
You can also add to that the analogy of a “victimless crime” and religion.
All that said, I have no problem with people’s preference for homosexual behavior, it’s a free world and all that. As long as it is separated from state, not overtly presented in public schools nor on banners on our public streets, etc. and can be roundly criticized; just as we handle religion and other superstitions.
RBG
>>I would still like to know what legal body
>>should interpret laws…
I think Bobbo finally realized how deep a hole he was in, and stopped digging.
#86 – RBG,
All that said, I have no problem with peopleâs preference for homosexual behavior, itâs a free world and all that.
And do you then support the concept of same sex marriage?
As long as it is separated from state, not overtly presented in public schools nor on banners on our public streets, etc. and can be roundly criticized;
Um … As long as you are consistent, I will not judge you a hypocrite. So, presumably, you are against presenting heterosexuality in schools as well. How will you deal with sex education? Abstinence only?
I also assume you would be for allowing the LBGT community to criticize the heterosexual one? I personally find it offensive when someone calls me a breeder. I’ve taken pains, literally, to prevent such an occurrence. So, I would say that I don’t like having my heterosexual lifestyle roundly criticized.
Do you?
Of course, we’re talking about liberties now rather than rights as we were before. Anyone has the right to criticize any part of my lifestyle. I may be offended and reserve the right to deride them for being narrow minded and discourage such behavior. That is the difference between rights and liberties.
When we talk about legalizing same sex marriage, we are talking about granting rights to a minority.
just as we handle religion and other superstitions.
Here you go again. I have no idea what the connection is in this case. How is homosexuality a superstition?
You really should be careful when listing things in clumps to ensure that the things are either obviously related or that you have explained what point you are making by lumping disparate and unrelated things.
#83–Mustard==I believe marriage has always been between a man and a woman. When it is between a man and several women it is polygamy==a different word for a different status. When gays are allowed to married, they too should get a different word. The value of words is in the distinctions they make. The more things with a difference are all lumped together, the more the word loses descriptive value.
#85–Scott==The last speech I saw Reverend Wright give was all about how differences were not deficiencies, yet that is how this debate goes.
Legislating from the bench simply means indeed that the court does not follow precedent or does not follow the clear meaning of statute or law. The courts “interpretation” of the law, the striking down of laws is a “type” of legislating.
Scott==if you don’t like that confusion, you should see the issue of words being given various and sometimes conflicting meanings. Good call!
On the issue of homosexuality being “natural” or not there was a recent (6 months ago?) article about the genetics of homosexuality–why hasn’t it been bred out of the population? I have a hazy recollection that the most relevant genes found to date so far that code for homosexuality have some other sort of genetic role in the body AND another even more hazy recollection that it might just be an accident that these genes just got attached to and tag along with the xy chromosome –ie not all traits are driven by some view of natural selection.
Speaking of natural selection, there will always be a balance of genetic code between species whose males hump everything that moves vs those that only hump in very defined situations. The first wastes a lot of energy but anything impregnable gets done, while the later saves energy but misses a few opportunities. Different species have different modalities.
#87–Mustard, I just took a nap is all. Plus, I’d say it is disheartening to want to highlight and honor the power of words and the nature of judicial review and too many people are stuck on the issue of the right/wrong of sexual discrimination. Two different subjects.
>>When gays are allowed to married, they
>>too should get a different word.
They do. It’s “same-sex marriage”. A form of marriage. Not a sloppy-seconds/ back-of-the-bus “civil union”.
#89 – bobbo,
One question. I’ll stick to just one since it obviously got lost in my longer post.
Exactly what branch of government would you like to see enforcing the constitutionality of laws?
#90–Mustard==when the California constitution was passed, do you think its authors intended that it required same sax marriage? Obviously Not.
Slavery was not overturned by the SCOTUS–it required the legislation of constitutional amendment by way of the 13th and 14th amendment.
The SCT would not find blacks to be human because of the law, yet the Ca SCt does find gay marriage to be part of marriage.
As Sea Lawyer pointed out above, all the Court could legitimately do is strike down the discriminatory referendum leaving the civil union law in place. Since you have repeatedly corrected me on things California Law, let me say that “if” that is what happened, then surely all can see that the Ca S Ct is legislating from the bench when they extend the concept/terminology of marriage to same-sex civil unions.
#92 – bobbo,
Perhaps I read the California case differently. I thought that the constitution did not specify that marriage was between a man and a woman and that someone tried to create a law that did state that.
If so, it would be the law more narrowly defining marriage and it would indeed be unconstitutional to do so.
I’m not a lawyer. But, please correct me where I’m wrong.