Didn't this come up when the ban was passed? I think the objection is dumb. I could see it potentially invalidating commmon-law marriageb at most, but not marriage. Talking about something that is "identical" to marriage implies that it is seperate from marriage (though it may look completely the same). So, marriage itself is implicitly excluded from the ban by the grammar of the sentence. Besides that, what lawyer is going to bring that argument to a court? Only if he's stalling for time and doesn't mind pissing off the judge, or is specifically aiming to take the gay-marriage ban to the Supreme Court, would a lawyer bring such a claim into a court. The former won't be lawyers for long, and the latter will do it anyway.
I am just overwhelmingly sick and tired of the government taking stances or passing laws in areas that are none of their goddam business.
the state legislature is so ****ed up i have no confidence they'll be able to get this one right, but today was a good day for the NY Supremes: this issue is just about the only reason left to consider supporting Patterson for his own full term as Gov. [rquoter]n a 4-3 decision, New York State's highest court rejected a Christian legal group's argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy, and should therefore be denied government benefits for spouses. But the court's narrow ruling did not address the broader question of whether same-sex marriages performed in other states should be recognized in New York. The minority vote came from judges who argued that the case should have been tossed altogether, "on the ground that same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York." Instead, the majority opinion expressed "hope that the Legislature will address this controversy." Still, Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle told the AP, "It absolutely builds momentum. It's another court saying the state Senate should act and clarify the issue." Legally married same-sex couples will now be entitled to public employee health insurance coverage and certain other benefits enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. The lawyer for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which challenged the benefits In New York, had argued that "the only relationship recognized as marriage is the committed union of a man and a woman. State and local officials should not attempt to use marriage laws from outside jurisdictions to place their political agendas ahead of the law." The state Assembly passed a bill earlier this year to legalize same-sex marriage, but it stalled in the Senate. Last week Governor Paterson promised that Senate leaders had agreed to bring it to a vote by the end of the year. Though the bill's sponsor Senator Thomas Duane says he has the votes to pass it, the AP reports that "the measure appears a few votes short of passage." [/rquoter]
when i read the title, I thought rimrocker was going to give the speech from full metal jacket...sound off like you got a pair
Hey, here's a good question: Why do we have government defining the institution of wedding for us? Isn't this a religious/cultural institution?
This has been brought up frequently. The government has an interests in regard to tax policy, benefits, inheritance and guardianship of children. For better or worse government has been involved in the marriage business since the Sumerians. Ideally I would like to see marriage handled through contract law but I doubt that will ever happen.
