Courts Reject Gay Marriage

charity2k4 · Post by **charity2k4** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:17 pm

The judges, in effect, tossed the hot potato back to the Legislature.

The state's highest court went to great lengths to find a justification for the state law that limits what the judges themselves called "a fundamental right" to heterosexuals. In an unfortunate 4-2 ruling issued last week, the Court of Appeals said prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married does not violate the state Constitution. It said that a state Legislature could rationally conclude that allowing only heterosexual couples to marry does not violate the Constitution's guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection because a Legislature could reasonably conclude it was better for the children in the state.

It also said that if the current Legislature didn't agree with these "reasonable" conclusions, reached a century ago, it could always change the law based on changed times. In other words, it passed the buck on a hot political issue.

In basing their decision on the welfare of children, the majority made some odd assumptions. For example, writing about relationships between same-sex couples, Judge Robert S. Smith said, "The Legislature could ... find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits - to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

"The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only."

In other words, because same-sex couples choose to raise children through well-thought-out, often expensive, complicated procedures - indicating responsibility, stability and a seriousness of purpose - they do not deserve the rewards of marriage. Those are to be conferred only on heterosexual couples, even though many of them are irresponsible when it comes to sex and raising children and even though many of them never have children. This is tortured reasoning in search of a safe decision.

As Chief Judge Judith Kaye said in a ringing dissent to the ruling, denying same-sex couples the right to marry in no way advances the cause of children. She called the ruling an "unfortunate misstep" and said that future generations will come to see the ruling as a mistake.

One can only hope. But as Kaye noted, just because future Legislatures might choose to legalize marriages between same-sex couples, does not mean the court should have avoided its duty to protect the rights of all citizens. She said banning gay marriages was the same as laws that once banned interracial marriages. Somehow, the majority judges saw no discrimination in the New York law, but rather said it was merely a reflection of the thinking of the times. But times change and judges have a responsibility to ensure that the laws reflect changed attitudes in terms of individual rights.

Where the issue goes from here is questionable. Bills to legalize same-sex marriages have been introduced in the Legislature in recent years, but have gone nowhere. This suggests a need to refocus energies and try to persuade dubious legislators. That may not be as lost a cause as some think. Reacting to the court ruling, Assemblyman Tom Kirwan, a conservative Republican from Newburgh, said he supported giving all couples the legal rights of a civil union. That's good.

But he went on, "I couldn't support marriage, although if it happened, I don't think it would signal the end of Western civilization. It's not like I'm 100 percent against it. Maybe 60/40."

If gay marriage advocates can nudge Kirwan to 50/50, they should stand a chance of convincing other legislators as well.

whats your thoughts on gay marriage do you agree with the decision made in this article ?

www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/07/09 ... 07-09.html

Mongoose · Post by **Mongoose** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:32 pm

I think I kinda agree with their decision but I also disagree. Basically I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the way God set it up.

However, if homosexual couples want the same rights as married couples then why can't they have them? Seems to be the way the world is going. My main objection is to it being called a 'marriage.' Call it something else. Heterosexual couples who choose not to get married but live together should also get the same rights as a married couple. Funny how no-one really argues for that.

I think the assumptions about parenting are wrong as they often are in these debates. I don't think that homosexual couples will be any better or worse at parenting than heterosexual couples. My main concern is how it would affect the children which again no-one seems to bring that up. They just bang on about their rights. That's a seperate issue I'm straying into though.

Therefore, the Court's are wrong to reject giving homosexual couples the same rights but maybe it is an issue for the legislature to sort out.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:34 pm

Mongoose wrote: Basically I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the way God set it up.

Since when did God invent marriage?

Marriage is man-made.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:35 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Since when did God invent marriage?

Marriage is man-made.

I agree, Cher!! And marriage should be between two people who love each other.

charity2k4 · Post by **charity2k4** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:36 pm

excellent point ! cherandbuster i need to think about that one

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:47 pm

charity2k4 wrote:

excellent point ! cherandbuster i need to think about that one

Good for you Charity

It's good to have an open mind and consider other viewpoints

Then you'll see where it takes you:)

Mongoose · Post by **Mongoose** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:03 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Good for you Charity

It's good to have an open mind and consider other viewpoints

Then you'll see where it takes you:)

Then why don't you have an open mind and consider my viewpoint instead of seeing the word 'God' and flying off the handle? If you want to be picky then, God invented the union between a man and a woman and man then put it in his law and called it 'marriage.'

Oh and I do have an open mind which I think is clear from the rest of my post if you bothered to read it.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:27 pm

Ah, yes....the good old days when interracial marriage was illegal should be brought back, too! :rolleyes:

I've yet to find anyone who can demonstrate why same-sex marriages "threaten" heterosexual ones or "are bad for children." It all comes down to some religious interpretations....not ALL religious interpretations, mind you, but SOME.

And those are the same EVERSO-SANCTIMONIOUS folks who want to interfere with a woman's reproductive freedom. They and they alone know what "GOD" had in mind, and they and they alone want to enforce their infinite wisdom on the rest of us.

Anyone who studies primate behavior knows that same-sex activities are certainly common. Take some time and read about life among the bonobo chimps, if you've never done it. These are our nearest genetic relatives--we share over 98% of the same DNA. (If need be, you could accept a blood transfusion from a chimp.) Even non-primates occasionally exhibit same-sex bonds. It's a genetic condition, not a GOD-induced one, and we can debate for years the idea that "GOD CREATED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE."

Trying to legislate based on religious laws is akin to the Taliban regime!

Imagine what might happen if Orthodox Jews decided that nobody in this country could mix meat with milk in the same meal? Imagine if they attempted to ban bacon and shellfish from our markets?

Like it or not, this is NOT and never HAS been a "Christian" nation, but the Christian fundamentalists are attempting to deny civil rights to homosexuals (the last group that it's "ok" to discriminate against, by the way,) by waving the "flag" of what's "good" for children.

Hogwash! Children exposed to loving unions will lean how to love; their sexual orientations are already established.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:36 pm

Why, thanks, Lady P! Be careful....if the fundies have their way, we could go back to burning witches! We know how feared THEY were! Damned PAGANS! :rolleyes:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:39 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Why, thanks, Lady P! Be careful....if the fundies have their way, we could go back to burning witches! We know how feared THEY were! Damned PAGANS! :rolleyes:

It goes back further than that - 'twas the Romans as started doing in the Druids

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:44 pm

"It goes back further than that - 'twas the Romans as started doing in the Druids"

Oh, yes....the GOOD old "good old days!"

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:51 pm

Lulu2 wrote:

Oh, yes....the GOOD old "good old days!"

Help! Twigged already :wah:

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:58 pm

I LIKE it here!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:53 pm

Mongoose wrote: Then why don't you have an open mind and consider my viewpoint instead of seeing the word 'God' and flying off the handle? If you want to be picky then, God invented the union between a man and a woman and man then put it in his law and called it 'marriage.'

Oh and I do have an open mind which I think is clear from the rest of my post if you bothered to read it.

Mongoose

Perhaps you misunderstood my post

My comments were directed towards Charity and not against you.

If I had something to say to you, you can be sure I would have said it.

Honestly.

We try to run a nice forum here without slinging thinly-veiled insults to relative newbies.

(Well except for Nomad but he doesn't really count);)

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:55 pm

Lulu2 wrote:

I LIKE it here!

We like you here, too :-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:58 pm

Thank you, Cher (and Buster, too)

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:04 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Thank you, Cher (and Buster, too)

Buster says if you give him a new toy he'll like you even more:)

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:06 pm

(Would he enjoy one of Lulu's homemade "bones?")

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:11 pm

*Buster's ears perk up more than usual*

*(and they're pretty big to begin with):p

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:19 pm

The court didn't "pass the buck". In this case the branches of government are operating properly. If the state constitution doesn't address the issue of gay marriage, then the court had nothing to act on. They can't make up constitutional law out of whole cloth, though they quite often do. They ruled properly that the state constitution does not compel the state to formally recognize unions between homosexuals. It also said the state legislature could remedy that if they so choose. We are a representative government. It is the job of the legislature to set law, not the courts. If the people of NY want gay marriage then all they have to do is lobby their representitives in the legislature. That's the way it is supposed to work.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:22 pm

Nicely said AZ:)

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:23 pm

And undoubtedly WILL work, at some point! But the problems are the same, regardless of whichever court hears the arguments, as you well know.

My brother and his partner of many years say I can be "flower girl" when/if they're ever allowed to legally form a marriage. I'd like to see that happen before I have to decorate a WALKER and hobble down the aisle!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:24 pm

Tell them to come to Massachusetts

The only state in the union to recognize gay marriage:-4

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:31 pm

:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap Believe me, you've no idea how many people admire your state for that brave position! Imagine it...equality for everyone!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:35 pm

I'm truly proud to live here:-6

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:59 pm

Lulu2 wrote: And undoubtedly WILL work, at some point! But the problems are the same, regardless of whichever court hears the arguments, as you well know.

My brother and his partner of many years say I can be "flower girl" when/if they're ever allowed to legally form a marriage. I'd like to see that happen before I have to decorate a WALKER and hobble down the aisle!

So if democracy moves too slowly for you, then you are willing to bypass it in favor of a judicial oligarchy...as long as they rule in your favor anyway...hmmmm? Even if you don't feel this way LuLu, and I'm not saying you do, many others on the left do.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:06 pm

Of COURSE not, 'Zapple! (Sounds like a sports drink....ZAPPLE! SOOOOO REFRESHING!) The democratic process is excruciatingly slow, sometimes....ask blacks or women or interracial couples.

It's only been recently that races could mingle legally...or, adopt! (You know something about that one.)

The wheels grind slowly.

:-5

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:03 pm

She said (sic- Judge Kaye) banning gay marriages was the same as laws that once banned interracial marriages

Yeah.. comparing the plight of blacks and homosexuals is a real winning argument with the Amercian public.. Black people just love being told that the racism encountered by them, and their parents and grand-parents is pretty much the same thing as not knowing which sex you identify with.

It polls really well for the gay people too.. They can get almost 2% of black people (incidentally, that is roughly the percentage of people who claim to be Gay are in this country) and their Gay marriage idea is supported by somewhere between 20-30% of the public.. leaving a paltry 70-80% of the public who will vote against it.. time and time again.

Raymond

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:12 pm

Hmmmm...let's see. In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage:

"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."

"In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." (Case Law Site)

++++++++++++++ You don't see any similarity to the same civil rights struggle same-sex couples have today? You don't see any overt or hidden prejudices against gays in your community, the press, etc?

Your statistics are from which source, please? 2% is considerably lower than many sources, and even if it were true...so what? Is it ok to discriminate against them because they're only "a few?"

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:36 am

flopstock wrote: IKinda like in grade school where if you smiled at the unpopular kid or 'god forbid' talked to them your friends started thinking you were a little strange too..:p

I tried to give the 'different' or 'unpopular' kids my attention in grade school.

I always root for the underdog:-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 am

FLOPSTOCK: "I think the purpose of the judicial is to keep us from moving backwards rather then just too slowly."

I'm still waiting for someone to explain (in a logical way, not a religiously based one) how it is that same-sex marriages "threaten" heterosexual ones.

And waiting...and waiting...and waiting.......:-3

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:12 pm

* waits with Lulu2 for the exact same thing *

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:13 pm

(We may grow old and grey here, together! I'm glad for your company, C'N'B!)

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:36 pm

Lulu2 wrote: (We may grow old and grey here, together! I'm glad for your company, C'N'B!)

Lulu2 :-4

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:50 pm

Lulu2 wrote: FLOPSTOCKI'm still waiting for someone to explain (in a logical way, not a religiously based one) how it is that same-sex marriages "threaten" heterosexual ones.

OK...no religious reasons, eh? How about medical ones?

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

And from the Centers for Disease Control:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the sexually transmitted disease, syphilis, has skyrocketed among men engaging in homosexual intercourse—from 5% in 1999 to 64% in 2004. Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s HIV, STD, and TB prevention programs, emphasized the need to prevent outbreaks: “Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the United States (“New CDC Data..., 2005).

Let's all face it, homosexuality is an inherently more dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle. The increase in early death and the rise in disease both affect the gross national product and the cost of health insurance in the same way that smoking does.

So that affects my wallet and my paycheck.

Anything that affects my standard of living in a negative way is threatening to my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:08 pm

Do we really have to hear this homophobic crap again, Jives?

We got it all in the "Brokeback Mountain" thread.

And the reason gays have more psychological issues may very well be because they feel forced to 'stay in the closet'.

If we treated them with respect and kindness

I'm sure they'd be better well-adjusted.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:14 pm

Jives wrote:

Let's all face it, homosexuality is an inherently more dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle. The increase in early death and the rise in disease both affect the gross national product and the cost of health insurance in the same way that smoking does.

So that affects my wallet and my paycheck.

Anything that affects my standard of living in a negative way is threatening to my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

That must be about the most obscure and tortuous excuse for feeling threatend that I have ever seen - talk about indirect!

Am I to assume that you are as anti smoker as you are anti homosexual?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:49 pm

Some sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among heterosexuals, too. I suppose we shouldn't let THEM marry, either? Wouldn't it be more practical to see every adult in committed marriages?

+++++"According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 19.2 million women are living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. In many countries, the rate of HIV infection in women is rising faster than in any other group.

Worldwide, more than 80 percent of HIV infections are spread by heterosexual sex (vaginal intercourse); women are particularly at risk of contracting HIV through this type of contact."

+++++(From the UK) Comparison of numbers of new diagnoses between 2002-2003 show:

-- Chlamydia increased by 9% (from 82,558 in 2002 to 89,818 in 2003)

-- Syphilis increased by 28% (from 1,232 in 2002 to 1,575 in 2003)

-- Gonorrhoea decreased by 3% (from 25,065 in 2002 to 24,309 in 2003)

-- Genital warts increased by 2% (from 69,569 in 2002 to 70,883 in 2003

++++(From the US CDC) Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) continue to be a major health threat in the United States. CDC estimates that 19 million STD infections occur annually, almost half of them among youth ages 15 to 24.

++++You'll excuse my snicker at your "research" from NARTH, an organization which seeks to "heal" homosexuals and return them to "normal." Seeking information from them is akin to getting abortion statistics from RIGHT TO LIFE groups.

And finally, your "logic" as to how same-sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage isn't logical.

Still waiting....and waiting...and waiting.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:58 pm

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that homosexuals are the last group openly hated by a large segment of the population. Yup--we can't legislate against those pesky folks of color, but we CAN go after the gays.

Say, Jives, I think we should ban heterosexual marriage, too! After all, straight parents have gay children. We need to put a STOP to that s#$t!

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:00 pm

Jives wrote: OK...no religious reasons, eh? How about medical ones?

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

And from the Centers for Disease Control:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the sexually transmitted disease, syphilis, has skyrocketed among men engaging in homosexual intercourse—from 5% in 1999 to 64% in 2004. Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s HIV, STD, and TB prevention programs, emphasized the need to prevent outbreaks: “Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the United States (“New CDC Data..., 2005).

Let's all face it, homosexuality is an inherently more dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle. The increase in early death and the rise in disease both affect the gross national product and the cost of health insurance in the same way that smoking does.

So that affects my wallet and my paycheck.

Anything that affects my standard of living in a negative way is threatening to my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

That paper also says this:

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:00 pm

Hmmmm...I wonder what the rate of mental illness might be among bigots?