http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6914743/ Ruling says same-sex couple can’t be denied equal rights NEW YORK - A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal. Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that “delivers the state Constitution’s promise of equality to all New Yorkers.” “The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law,” said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case. “Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they’re entitled to get them the same way straight couples do.” State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York’s trial level court. The couples brought a lawsuit arguing they were denied legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. The judge agreed and said the New York City clerk may not deny a license to any couple solely because the two are of the same sex. “Under both the federal and New York State constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty” extends to protect marriage,” Ling-Cohan wrote. The ruling will not take effect for at least 30 days. The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, “We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options.” The judge ordered a copy of her decision sent to the state attorney general, who was not involved in the case. Calls to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office were not immediately returned. The ruling applies only in the city, but could extend statewide if upheld by the Court of Appeals in Albany. Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was “disappointed” by the decision. “Redefinition of a law’s terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She’s an activist judge legislating from the bench.” Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples in the case, said they were thrilled by the ruling and believed it would offer their family increased legal protection. They have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter. “We’re just overjoyed,” said Shain. “We didn’t think it would ever happen. Kennedy said she wants to marry Shain as soon as possible. “I can’t wait,” she said. “We went to buy a (marriage) license in March 2004 and couldn’t get it. That’s what started this whole thing.” The judge noted that one plaintiff in the case, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.
I agree with the ruling. I wish it would go to the Supreme Court and be upheld. Sadly I don't think this court or any court in the next few years will make that ruling.
Any man . .. can marry any woman Any woman . .can marry any man Whether they gay straight or other Noone . .. gay straight or other can marry same sex . . .. wherein are gays discriminated against Rocket River Advocating the Devil Remember. . i think marriage itself should be stricken from the law books
Well, there was a time when any white man could mary any white woman. Any black man could mary any black woman. No white man or woman could marry a black man or woman. By your standards, wasn't this not discriminatory?
The discrimination comes when one person can mary the person of their choice. They can marry who they love. But the other person can not marry the person of their choice. Their choice is forbidden by law. Two consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they feel like.
true true and true I think marriage is a personal thing a religious thing but should not be a legal thing AT ALL!!!! Rocket River
I think straight people (with children) getting divorced is a much bigger problem in this country that gay people wanting to get married...
This kind of thing should not be left to a judge. I think gay people should have marriage or civil union rights, but it should be done through the legislature.
I've read that young people (teens/twenties) generally favor gay marriage (as well as full, equal rights for gays). If this is the case, then it's only a matter of time before the laws are changed (like 10 years or so from now?)..
For the record What is the difference between marriages and civil unions I'm serious. . . . . . . Rocket River
Come on, don't give me this. Apparently, no judge in New York was aware of this discrimination until now? If people want to change the way things have been done for decades, then pass a new law.
civil unions... • laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants of the entirety; • Causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to or dependent upon spousal status; • Probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer; • Adoption law and procedure; • Group insurance for state employees and continuing care contracts under; • Spouse abuse programs; • Prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status; • Victim’s compensation rights; • Workers’ compensation benefits; • Laws relating to emergency and nonemergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitatior and notification, including the Patient’s Bill of Rights and the Nursing Home Residents’ Bill of Rights; • Terminal care documents, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation; • Family leave benefits; • Public assistance benefits under state law; • Laws relating to taxes imposed by the state or a municipality; • Laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege; • The homestead rights of a surviving spouse and homestead property tax allowance; • Laws relating to loans and veterans; • The definition of family farmer; • The laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others; • State pay for military service; • Application for absentee ballot; • Family landowner rights to fish and hunt; • Legal requirements for assignment of wages; and • Affirmance of relationship. thought that the "state pay for military service" tad bit ironic. anyway, the main difference between marriage and civil unions is the way that they are spelled out. i don't mean to pull race into the issue (actually i do... until proven that there isn't a "gay gene" and of course there's going to be some of you who will dispute the race analogy because of the lack of a finding), but this is how i see it... why complain that you have to drink from a water fountain that says "colored people" instead of one that says "whites only". i mean, no matter which one you drink from you'll be drinking water, right? they're just labeled differently, right? no... it's not right. just call it what it is.
A judge can't do anything until someone files a suit. Apparently, nobody filed a suit until now. The judge looked at the complaint and found that the anti-gay marriage laws conflicted with the NY Constitution. That is the job of the judicial system - to interpret the Constitution and make sure that no law passed by the legislature conflicts with the Constitution. If the legislature doesn't like this, then they can amend the Constitution. Sometimes people (i.e. the Legislature) are slow to recognize their own failures to live up to their higher standards (i.e. the Constitution). That's why great minds came up with the idea of the judiciary - and it's worked well enough to be adopted by all levels of the government. So if you want to change a system that has been around for decades, then pass a new law
Actually I'm not the one to through the race card at because I feel the derailment of the civil rights movement was a MAJOR problem The problem was not WHITE FOUNTAINS and COLORED FOUNTAINS the problem was the COLORED Fountains were filthy or didn't work the Seperate did not bother me as much as the UNEQUAL Had they been EQUAL . . .. then I doubt much of the problem would have existed So again . . .if Civil Unions = Marriage. . .I don't see the issue Rocket River
This is probably Bush's incentive for a constitutional amendment ASAP. I can only think of one amendment and one (partial) constitutional article that were ever repealed: prohibition and the 3/5ths rule dealing with congressional representation for slaves. That leads me to believe that, aside from the procedure involved (same as ratification? votes by state and federal legislatures?), repealing a marriage amendment is just something people (especially a bunch of fellow gen-Xers) might not be willing to put the effort into, unless it can be done in a non-congressional, non-presidential year (odd numbered years only). Furthermore, having it as a constitutional amendment makes it subject to inclusion in K-12 social studies, civics and history curriculum, which might help indoctrinate even younger generations against same-sex marriage. Also, superficially speaking, it might be tough to get straight guys en masse to admit support for gay rights, although the same could probably have been said for caucasians en masse and civil rights 50 years ago.
The ultimate cop-out! It can be used to justify everything from how you like your mashed potatoes to why slavery is not wrong. Why think when you can fall back on tradition?
