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.
#93–Scott, I think you are right. Regardless, on those terms, if “everybody knows/assumes” that marriage is between a man and women, and not between cats and dogs, there is no need to detail the obvious. Absent statutory definition in the legislation itself, the common meaning is to be given effect. That is the whole issue here. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Change should come from the legislature, not the bench.
I was reminded last night of why judicial activism is to be avoided. It might be “ok” when you are for the result, but where is your argument when the court legislates against your interest?
The issue is California legalized medical maurijuana. It is to be grown and consumed within the State. Yet the SCOTUS overruled it based on an expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause.
If thats what happened, we have what I would call a bad result of judicial activism and I can argue that point validly because I follow that concept even when I would favor the result otherwise. Others cant’.
So, I broke down and found a readable summary of the case in a “find law” article:
http://tinyurl.com/4ypg7f
I found a key sentence near the end to be: “Finally, the court notes the risk that having separate tracks for opposite-sex and same-sex relationships may send a more general message that government regards gay men and lesbians and their families as less worthy of respect.”
I would say “less worthy of tax support” but my position is pretty thin. They have a strong argument in comparing “inter-racial marriage” to same sex marriage prohibitions as amounting to the same offense but I would quibble there too.
A quibble is not an argument, it is an aside/cavil.
#94 – bobbo,
#93–Scott, I think you are right. Regardless, on those terms, if “everybody knows/assumes” that marriage is between a man and women, and not between cats and dogs, there is no need to detail the obvious. Absent statutory definition in the legislation itself, the common meaning is to be given effect. That is the whole issue here. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Change should come from the legislature, not the bench.
Actually, I have a strong difference of opinion on that subject. Perhaps the exact definition of marriage was deliberately left out of the state constitution. Older legal documents were often much shorter than say, the USA PATRIOT Act, which is many many times longer than the document it subverts.
The point I’m making though about shorter documents is that they are intentionally vague. This, likely deliberately, gives the courts latitude in the interpretation and allows such documents to survive huge swings in the moral zeitgeist.
So, while I doubt the authors were specifically thinking about same sex marriage when they wrote California’s constitution, I bet they were indeed thinking that being less specific would allow the document to be maintained through significant societal change. And, since the only constant in the world is change, the decision that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional would likely have been well within the intent of the framers of said constitution.
>>when the California constitution was passed,
>>do you think its authors intended that it
>>required same sax marriage? Obviously Not.
Same thing with the framers of the Constitution and people of African descent or native Americans. Shall we endorse discrimination forever? The California constitutionalists probably never even thought about same-sex marriage, either negatively or positively.
>>That is the whole issue here. Marriage has
>>always been between one man and one woman.
Christ, Bobbo, what kind of a luddite are you? Should pocket calculators be outlawed because counting has “always” been done on fingers or an abacus?
Give it up, dude. The homophobe Knight’s “initiative” was unconstitutional, discriminatory, hate-based, and even the conservative California Supreme Court recognized that. They were probably biting their tongues until they bled, but overturning the hate-bill was really the only thing they could do.
>>I would say “less worthy of tax support”
So. After all this time, I’m still confused as to what you think about discrimination against same-sex couples.
Should it be legislated (from the legislature)? Should it be outlawed? Should it follow the wishes of the framers of the Constitution, and leave it up the the “huge swings in moral zeitgeist”, and The Scottster calls it?
Seems to me that if you keep digging this “legislation from the bench” hole any deeper, you’ll need to start learning Chinese – you’ll be all the way to the center of the earth and out the other side.
#97–Scott==my point is just the opposite. The language was not vague, the specific definitions of words were all well understood and accepted for over 100 years.
Language can be intentionally vague to go with the zeitgeist and that was not done here, so with proper judicial interpretation, there is no vagueness at all in the clear meaning of the constitution.
Mustard–you are assiduously missing the point. If you could discuss the meaning of “atheist” with any objective reference, I would continue the discussion, but since you dont…….
#99–Mustard==my preference would be for marriage to be between men and women with gays having civil unions with all the same rights, privileges, and respect.
My preference would be for guns to be illegal.
But our society is broken in some fundamental ways and maybe a broken response is needed to attempt a fairness/liberty/safety interest.
Therefore, ok, marriage for any two people ((with the other restrictions long recognized still allowed??? brother and sister for instance??????????)) and give them each a gun. This is america after all.
BTW, what about brothers and sisters getting married? Mothers and sons? Polygamy? I don’t see any argument against it as the zeitgeist may desire.
>>my preference would be for marriage to be
>>between men and women with gays having civil
>>unions with all the same rights, privileges,
>>and respect.
Wtf, Bobster? Are you really THAT hung up on semantics? Or are you (wink, wink) acknowledging that having “civil unions with all the same blah blah blah” is really a euphemism for sloppy-seconds/ back-of-the-bus “separate but equal” treatment that has been universally recognized as discriminatory (and unconstitutional).
Taken on face value, your argument makes no more sense than allowing cops and civilians to have guns, but requiring that the cops call them “guns” and the civilians call them “firearms”. What the fuck does it matter?
If same-sex marriage really DOES warrant all the same rights, privileges, and respect of heterosexual marriage, then why not call the same-sex variety the same thing that something it’s identical to is called (i.e., marriage)?
I think, once again, you have talked me to death. And this time, you’re making no sense at all.
>>The language was not vague, the specific
>>definitions of words were all well understood
>>and accepted for over 100 years.
Ok, if the language was not vague, please point out the precise location of the precise language that defines “marriage” precisely as something between a man and a woman.
The framers of the Constitution had nothing to say about astronauts, supercomputers, Windows Vista, digital rights and their management, interracial marriage, WiFi in schools, Ernesto Miranda, or just about anything else in modern-day life. The language was kept just precise enough to ensure, no matter what changes in society transpired, that the rights of all citizens would be protected.
#103–Mustard–I disagree with you but think your position “makes sense.” How could it not make sense when two courts have ruled in your favor?
How could my position not make sense when 4-5 courts have ruled in my favor?
Do you “not understand” every position you decide you don’t agree with? Seems manufactured to me, but you do argue that way.
>>I don’t see any argument against it as the
>>zeitgeist may desire.
The zeitgeist does not desire those things. Maybe 500 years from now, when we’re all cloned and our failing body parts are replenished from test tubes, those things will be acceptable. Right now, they’re not.
Just as laws permitting slavery or banning interracial marriage became irrelevant and generally recognized as discriminatory as the times changed, so has this abomination known as Proposition 22. Irrelevant. Discriminatory. Supported only by homophobes and hatemongers.
Tsk.
>>How could my position not make sense when
>>4-5 courts have ruled in my favor?
There are a lot of visitors to godhatesfags.org. I would imagine that many of them are appalled at the thought of same-sex marriage. Maybe some of them are even sitting on the bench. And maybe their bigotry, hatred, and homophobia colors their judgement, even when it comes to legal decisions.
Ya think?
#106–tsk,tsk, indeed. So wrapped up in your own opinion you can’t even understand the other viewpoint?
Well, my old sister lives with my old mother==each taking care of the other. If they could net out $4000 more per year in tax effects by getting married, wouldn’t they be foolish not to do so?
I believe polygamy is desired by many.
Do you understand the consequences of marriage becoming unfettered?
#107–Mustard===focus. the issue is not color or bias, the issue is whether or not you “understand” the argument. The way you flit from one irrelevant subject to the next, maybe you don’t?
>>focus. the issue is not color or bias, the
>>issue is whether or not you “understand” the
>>argument.
Fuck a duck. Bobbo, you’ve certainly outdone yourself this time. You’ve talked me to death and beyond.
I “understand” (does that word have special meanings when enclosed in quotes, or is that just more of your obscure punctuation?) the argument perfectly.
What I don’t “understand” is your relentless argumentation on behalf of an unsupportable (other than by homophobes and hatemongers) notion.
In any case, I’m Audi 5000 (if you don’t “understand” that, check the link below).
http://tinyurl.com/5tc976
Oh, and just one more thing, Bobbolina:
>>If they could net out $4000 more per year in
>>tax effects by getting married, wouldn’t they
>>be foolish not to do so?
They’d have to have some pretty smooth operators as tax lawyers to do that. Most people incur a tax PENALTY for getting married.
http://tinyurl.com/5pl629
I’ve never known of ANYONE who got married in order to profit on their taxes.
#111–Mustard==thanks for that. I got married in late December and remember thinking a month later when doing our taxes that we should have waited.
So, ok, if marriage brought other governmental support?–I hear of married people getting divorced and welfare types getting divorced in order to increase benefits of some kind?
Anyway, near the end of your link this sentence appears: “Depending on how Congress handles tax relief, the marriage penalty could be reinstated in 2010.”
Maybe THAT is why gay marriage is being recognized? Being a homophobe has its limits, but taxing the people appeals to the legislative types.
#108 – bobbo,
Do you understand the consequences of marriage becoming unfettered?
I do. And, I applaud it. The only problem I have with polygamy is that some people really mean polygyny. As long as both polygyny and polyandry are treated in the same non-discriminatory manner, I have no problem with many men – one woman, many women – one man, many to many, whatever works for each case.
Of course, the tax implications would need to be fair. That’s probably a subject for another debate. Group marriages should convey neither an advantage nor a disadvantage over couples. Further, I strongly believe that marriage should not convey any tax advantage or disadvantage over a single lifestyle.
I don’t see why the government needs to be in the business of encouraging or discouraging any type of marriage.
As for your incest example, that’s a bit of a gray area for me. The potential for breeding between close relatives introduces the potential for a victim in the form of a deformed child. So, I’m not really sure about how I feel about it long term, when the potential may exist to determine that close relatives may safely breed. Nor do I have a strong feeling about it when there is no possibility for breeding for whatever reason.
Personally, it makes my skin crawl.
But, does that mean that it should be outlawed? Probably not. Many things make my skin crawl. I’m a product of society, same as you. However, I can’t predict the future moral zeitgeist. Heinlein talked about reading a gene chart and determining that breeding was safe for two people, or not, purely objectively and without regard for their kinship or lack thereof. Years of that may change the way people think in the future, if humanity lives that long.
#113–Scott==you have once again ((do you know the other one?)) fell into the trap==you very much associate getting married with having sex/making babies. But that is not what marriage is about. Marriage is about property rights and associational rights and social benefits and obligations. So–while arguing forcefully against the traditional marriage, when not highlighted for currect p/c you fall into it entirely.
Good show!
#114 – bobbo,
Please read my post again. I didn’t consider progeny until discussing the incest topic you raised. In other cases, it is wholly irrelevant.
#88
> When we talk about legalizing same
> sex marriage, we are talking about
> granting rights to a minority.
I disagree. There is a third category: privileges. IMO, the core issue surrounding gay marriage is that privileges are being conferred based on State sponsored discrimination. Everyone has the right to marry whomever and how every many people they wish. However, the State is discriminately choosing which sorts of contracts it will recognize. In order to do that, the State must provide a legitimate justification for excluding certain persons from qualifying for those privileges and they have yet to do it. The only legitimate justification the State can provide for such discrimination is eugenics.
#88
Let’s suppose for a moment that we cater to the pedantic notion of using a different term for marriage, gay marriage/civil union and polygamy. What is the justification for precluding civil unions from the same privileges as heterosexual couples? What is the public good that justifies State sponsored discrimination?
I understand your argument with respect to the Courts dictating law but that is not the case here. What I see is the equivalent of the Courts telling the Legislature that any law that limits freedom of speech will be overturned. Similarly, they are saying that any law that confers privileges based purely on sexual preference is going to be deemed unconstitutional. That is not legislating from the bench; that is attempting to save time by telling the Legislature to stop writing unconstitutional laws.
#102
A valid question actually. Again, we need to formalize the *State’s* justification for denying such arrangements.
88 Mis Scott. I’ve already devoted an entire post to the concept that heterosexuality, being the product of a half billion years of evolution and the dominant force in human life trumps just about all other human concerns including the law, as a generalized statement. For that reason, the playing field is not level, it never was, and it never will be, regardless of whatever artificial laws may pass or whatever artificial attitudes may be in vogue about homosexuality.
Thus I answer your sex education question.
RBG
#117 – RBG,
The statistics from the animal kingdom simply show that on this point you happen to be flat dead wrong. Perhaps I’d be more likely to convince you if I were more subtle. However, it’s hard for me to be subtle when blatant facts stare us both in the face and show that in this case, you are mistaken.
Evolution has, for a half billion years, supported a significant population of homosexuals in a wide variety of species. So, if you want to make your point based on evolution, you’ll simply have to do better than that.
Evolution has always cared only about numbers. Whatever works for any given species is rewarded by survival. A minority, sometimes quite a large minority, of individuals of many species are homosexual. That you can’t explain why evolution supports this does not change the observable fact that it does.
An observable fact needs no explanation; it simply is.
It would be nice if we had tried and proven theories to explain everything in the universe. But, we don’t. Evolution supports homosexuality. Deal with it.
#117
The logic that heterosexuality is the natural norm and thus justifies the State’s discrimination is molding the facts to fit your position. It could have easily been argued that negroes were a plague against Caucasians a century ago and the logic would be equally empty. It presumes that humanity has not and will not evolve and adapt to its environment. Thus, it might very well be the case that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of civilization. I do not suggest such a notion but rather pose it to show that arguments based on what is “natural” cannot be used as justification for government endorsed discrimination as no one can speak from authority as to what is truly natural.
#119–Thomas==your position is stronger than you make it. The whole point/challenge/joy/responsibility /failure of humanity is to “rise above” nature and give the universe/suffer the consequences of the meaning that is used to give the universe meaning.
To that end, such meaning should come from the legislature, and not the bench.
#120
I understand that humanity is a unique species in its ability to operate contrary to instinct. However, there are limits to the laws that may be passed by the legislature. The legislature is not at liberty to pass laws that indiscriminately provide benefits to one class of people unless they can provide justification for their discrimination. For example, in the case of the ADA, the justification is that the people receiving the benefits have physical and/or mental inequalities that gives them a disadvantage to that of average citizens. What is the legislature’s justification for conferring privileges on a select group of people? The fundamental principles on which the country is founded mandate equal treatment under the law unless justification can be provided to change that. Again I ask, what is the State’s justification for giving benefits to one group of people and not others? Without that justification, the law is fundamentally unconstitutional.
#121–Thomas==well reasoned IF one starts with the premise that marriage is a basic human right. I don’t think it is, it is a creature of statute. In China they regulate how many children you can have. Unconstitutional?? How basic is basic?
To that end, let me agree totally with you on the gay issue and just ask you for my education==is there any permissible ban on incest marriages or multiple marriage, or how do you twease out the “basic” right(s) at issue?
#122
We must be careful when we say that marriage is a human right. The fact that people can commit to each other is a fundamental right that no government can grant nor take away. That commitment can be between any number of people and take a multitude of forms. That right is not in question by either side of the gay marriage debate.
The core issue here is whether the State can confer privileges on a select group of people without legitimate justification. No State is actively preventing homosexual couples from entering into a commitments. What is happening is that various States are not granting on those commitments the same level of legitimacy and thus privileges as heterosexual couples. IMO, the State cannot discriminate in this manner unless they can provide justification. Unless the State can provide valid reasons for conferring privileges on heterosexual couples and not homosexual, incestuous or polygamous unions it must, IMO, abandon any such privileges. The short, vernacular version is that the State should get out of the business of recognizing and granting benefits to marriage in any way unless it changes to recognizing unions between any two people without regard to the number of such unions, sexual preference, gender or yes, lineage.