POL - NY strikes down gay marriage

[Flasch186]

Damn Activist Judges!! J/k


New York court refuses to recognize same-sex marriage

Thursday, July 6, 2006; Posted: 10:21 a.m. EDT (14:21 GMT)


NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The New York State Court of Appeals refused to recognize same-sex marriage in a ruling issued Thursday, saying the issue was a question for the Legislature to decide.

The New York case involved 48 gay and lesbian couples who filed four separate cases seeking to overturn a 97-year-old state law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

The couples claimed the law violated their constitutional rights because it defended sex discrimination. The cases were heard together by the court in Albany.

"We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

In February, New York's law was upheld in a lower appeals court, forcing the fight to the State Court of Appeals.

It was was one of several initiatives by gay rights activists across the United States, where gay marriage has been a divisive issue in recent years, particularly in the 2004 presidential election.

Massachusetts is the only state to permit gays to marry, while Vermont allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage but calls them civil unions.

In the November 2004 election, ballot measures were passed in 11 states to ban gay marriages.

[Riggins44]

I really don't understand what the big deal is in letting a gay man marry a gay woman.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

I really don't understand what the big deal is in letting a gay man marry a gay woman.

LOL...i guess that they could....do you have to prove you love someone to get married? I thought that there was some protection so you couldnt scam the gov't (easily) by marrying someone of foreign citizenship so that they could become a U.S. citizen....like a questionnaire or something?

[sachmo71]

I see nothing wrong with this judgement. The law was already on the books, and it's up to the legislature to overturn it.

[Subby]

Seems like a cop out to me. Wasn't the question about the constitutionality of the law in question?

[st.cronin]

If this will prevent women from marrying dolphins, I'm all for it.

[Subby]

Just gay ones.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I see nothing wrong with this judgement. The law was already on the books, and it's up to the legislature to overturn it.

That's the way I see it: New York did what Massachusetts should have. Left it to the Legislature to decide.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Subby

Seems like a cop out to me. Wasn't the question about the constitutionality of the law in question?

"We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

That reads to me like "the law is not unconsititutional. Ergo, if the law is to be changed, that's the legislature's job, not ours."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's the way I see it: New York did what Massachusetts should have. Left it to the Legislature to decide.

Well aside from the fact that the Massachusetts Constitution may be different then the New York one?!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well aside from the fact that the Massachusetts Constitution may be different then the New York one?!

I never got the impression that it was a constitutional issue over there. What I seem to remember is the courts ordering the Legislature to draft legislation specifically permitting gay marriage.

That's a far cry from "Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, therefore gays may marry."

[SackAttack]

dola,

Looks like it might have been both:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

The court said forbidding it was unconstitutional, but then ordered the Legislature to codify its stance into law, basically preventing Massachusetts from modifying their Constitution to preserve the law, had they wanted to do so. Ex post facto and all that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

dola,

Looks like it might have been both:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

The court said forbidding it was unconstitutional, but then ordered the Legislature to codify its stance into law, basically preventing Massachusetts from modifying their Constitution to preserve the law, had they wanted to do so. Ex post facto and all that.

Well... since marriage is a state guarenteed thing, the legislature would have to be compelled to change their law if limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was deemed unconstitutional. I see nothing wrong in the slightest with the Court saying the legislature has to change their laws.

Nothing in the article linked says they couldn't change their Constitution... in fact one of the politicians said they wouldn't be able to change their Constitution before they were required to change their laws, meaning they could change the Constitution, only that it was a far more time intensive project.

Far better than the other option, which is to strike down the unconstitutional law (which would mean striking down the marriage laws in their entirety... meaning no one could get married at all until they were rewritten into the law).

[clintl]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

dola,

Looks like it might have been both:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

The court said forbidding it was unconstitutional, but then ordered the Legislature to codify its stance into law, basically preventing Massachusetts from modifying their Constitution to preserve the law, had they wanted to do so. Ex post facto and all that.

There was nothing in the ruling that prevented a constitutional amendment. I believe the problem was that it takes a vote of the people to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, and that couldn't happen until 2006, the next scheduled elections (the ruling was in 2004). Anybody know what happened? Is there going to be a vote in Massachusetts on a constitutional amendment this year?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just gay ones.

Gay women or gay dolphins? But what if it's a woman and a male dolphin? That's still OK, right?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by clintl

There was nothing in the ruling that prevented a constitutional amendment. I believe the problem was that it takes a vote of the people to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, and that couldn't happen until 2006, the next scheduled elections (the ruling was in 2004). Anybody know what happened? Is there going to be a vote in Massachusetts on a constitutional amendment this year?

This was the most recent I could find on it:

"In 2005, the year after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, VoteOnMarriage.org collected 170,000 signatures requesting that the Massachusetts Legislature vote on whether to place a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexuals on the ballot.

At least 50 legislators, who will first vote July 12 at the Constitution Convention, must approve the amendment this year and next year for the referendum to appear on the November 2008 ballot."

However, my understanding is that after the Mass. decision, more than 50% of citizens approved it, so it may be doubtful the amendment will pass anyways. Sounds like the legislature didn't decide on its own to even offer it as an amendment but was forced into it by the citizen's initiative.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Found this on Wikipedia:

The future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is still uncertain, as there is an active effort to amend the state constitution in order to forbid it. In order to amend the state constitution, it is necessary for an amendment first to pass two state constitutional conventions (a joint session of the state general court (house of representatives and senate), before going before the voters in a referendum. An amendment that would forbid same-sex marriage, establish civil unions for same-sex couples conveying the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, and as convert existing same-sex marriages into civil unions passed the first constitutional convention but was defeated in the second.

Many moderate legislators who had initially voted for the amendment abandoned it, and most legislators on the right elected to throw their support behind a new ballot initiative to ban future same-sex marriages, with no provision for civil unions. This measure is sponsored by an organization called VoteOnMarriage.Org. The full text of the proposed amendment reads "When recognizing marriage entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman." It was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly.[5] VoteOnMarriage.Org then collected 170,000 signatures before the December 7, 2005 deadline; 65,825 were required. The measure can now appear on the ballot if 50 legislators approve it in each of the current and next sessions of the Massachusetts General Court. If they do so, the measure will appear on the ballot in 2008.[6] The first vote is scheduled for July 12, 2006.[7]

The amendment is also being challenged in court, based on a provision in the Massachusetts Constitution, Article 48,, Section 2, which prohibits the use of an initiative petition for "reversal of a judicial decision."

[SackAttack]

My essential problem with the Massachusetts ruling was that it required an affirmative rewrite of the law, rather than simply throwing out the law determined to be unconstitutional.

That bothers me, because there's a part of me that wonders if there's the possibility that we might not head down a road where such a ruling is on the other side of the civil liberties fence.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My essential problem with the Massachusetts ruling was that it required an affirmative rewrite of the law, rather than simply throwing out the law determined to be unconstitutional.

That bothers me, because there's a part of me that wonders if there's the possibility that we might not head down a road where such a ruling is on the other side of the civil liberties fence.

Well, I'd imagine the problem with throwing out the law is that at least until it was passed so it followed the Constitution, you couldn't have people get married! It was probably a unique ruling to prevent people who were having weddings from not having their marriages recognized.