Gay Marriage one step closer in NYS

[John Adams]

A NY court today ruled that NYs ban on gay marriage violated the NY State Constitution.

 

Appeals on the Way

[RkFast]

As much as Im against gay marriage, Im glad this went through. Why? Because fighting laws you dont like IN THE COURTS is the proper way to do it. Having elected officials flout the laws on the books like those mayors did a while back was reprehensible.

[Tux of Borg]

I don't pay attention to the ruling of activist judges. This issue is on it's way to the supreme court.

[silvermike]

To clarify the law - it can only go as high as the top court in New York state. It's an issue of the NYS constitution, so if it flies in Albany, that's the end of the story. I believe there's one step in between - Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court, maybe?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

You gotta love issues of little importance getting all this attention!

 

Wake me when the fluff goes away...

[John Adams]

I don't pay attention to the ruling of activist judges.  This issue is on it's way to the supreme court.

228733[/snapback]

 

Do you use "activist" to describe judges on the right too?

[silvermike]

I really dislike the term activist judges. Part of the purpose of even having a judicial system is to protect the interests of the individual against that of a majority. Basically, there needs to be some system allowing you to do unpopular things. The courts struck down anti-inter-racial marriage laws a few decades ago, and it went against the will of the majority. Brown v. Board of Ed is another case. Segregation was popular, because it imposed the will of a majority on the minority - it got trumped by equal protection under the law, just like this.

 

Legislatures can NOT be trusted to protect any minority or any individual. That's why we need courts.

[slothrop]

To clarify the law - it can only go as high as the top court in New York state.  It's an issue of the NYS constitution, so if it flies in Albany, that's the end of the story.  I believe there's one step in between - Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court, maybe?

228760[/snapback]

 

it will go to the appellate division then to the Court of Appeals.

 

For those who dislike "activist judges," how would you have courts handle issues of substantive rights?

 

I think the term is deplorable and an invention of right wingers who disliked the outcome of various substantive due process cases. Under their definition, the most "activist" of activist judges must have been our first Chief Justice, John Marshall, for reading into the Constitution the concept of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison decision!

[Alaska Darin]

it will go to the appellate division then to the Court of Appeals.

 

For those who dislike "activist judges," how would you have courts handle issues of substantive rights?

 

I think the term is deplorable and an invention of right wingers who disliked the outcome of various substantive due process cases. Under their definition, the most "activist" of activist judges must have been our first Chief Justice, John Marshall, for reading into the Constitution the concept of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison decision!

229206[/snapback]

I'd rather they strike down the law and force the legislative branch to actually do their job.

[slothrop]

I'd rather they strike down the law and force the legislative branch to actually do their job.

229217[/snapback]

 

fair enough, there is a fine line between judicial rulings and legislative action. however, Justice Douglas once wrote that enumerated rights (i.e. speech, assembly, worship, etc) necessarily have cast a penumbra of unstated rights (i.e. privacy). Meaning that the enumerated rights would be rendered meaningless without the existence of unstated rights like privacy. For example, what good is the right to assembly if the government were allowed unfettered access into your home?

 

Given that, and the judiciary's charge of interpreting laws - if there is a broad provision for equal protection, is it not the judiciary's job to interpret what that means? If the legislature does not like the judiciary's interpretation they can pass appropriate legislation within Constitutional limits. What is "activist" about this? This is our system of seperation of powers at work.

[Bill from NYC]

A NY court today ruled that NYs ban on gay marriage violated the NY State Constitution.

 

Appeals on the Way

228670[/snapback]

 

We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK?

 

Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages?

[erynthered]

We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK?

 

Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages?

229487[/snapback]

 

 

Maybe he's a gay non smoker..............no wait.

 

 

 

 

Kidding, just kidding!! carry on..............

[Thamus]

The NYS Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state?

 

What is?

[John Adams]

The NYS Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state?

 

What is?

229503[/snapback]

 

The highest court in NYS is the Court of Appeals. Just a strange naming of the courts in NYS. In most states the state Supreme Court is the highest; in NYS, the Supreme Court is a middle court and the Court of Appeals is the highest.

[John Adams]

We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK?

 

Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages?

229487[/snapback]

 

Prohibiting someone from 1) having death benefits, 2) committing to a relationship (marriage), 3) sharing health benefits with their chosen spouse, 4) (and on) amounts to discrimination against someone just because of the sex of the person they fall in love with. It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess.

 

Heterosexuals can support gay marriage or not. Be active or not. There are plenty of anti-gay marriage heteros who think this issue is of paramount import. Why? I have no idea.

 

You have your big issue: smoking in private places. I'm with you- it's absurd that the government tells private businesses to follow rules RE smoking- but I don't care a whole lot about it. You do. We all have our priorities.

 

As an early poster in this thread said: who cares? I agree- Iraq, Russia, tax cuts, shrinking the size of the federal government- these are bigger issues. This one gets my dander up. If it doesn't do it for you, then so be it: go back to your smoking campaign.

[John Adams]

Maybe he's a gay non smoker..............no wait.

Kidding, just kidding!! carry on..............

229497[/snapback]

 

This coming form a guy whose avatar is a couple guys frolicking under a rainbow?

[erynthered]

This coming form a guy whose avatar is a couple guys frolicking under a rainbow?

229903[/snapback]

 

 

 

That was good, cheers!

[silvermike]

Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why?

[Rubes]

Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why?

229965[/snapback]

 

Perhaps you should ask for a 'logical' multi-sentence explanation...might get more meaningful results that way

[swede316]

Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages?

I could care less....If you wanna smoke another dude's pole...go ahead...as long as you ain't messing with me I don't care. I'm not super religious so hey whatever floats your boat...just don't affect me.

[MichFan]

Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why?

229965[/snapback]

Check the archives from back around October/November. This topic was beat around so much that I'm sure those involved don't want to contribute more than one sentence anymore.

[Bill from NYC]

>>>>It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess.<<<<

 

Honestly, I have a tough time with the issue. Yes, I have a problem with the govt. being involved in the bedrooms of America. Otoh, what shall we do when people sue because they want to marry their brother, or their German Sheppard? This may sound nuts, but do you doubt for even a second that someone will take these issues to court? I do not.

 

Gays are far better off the way things are imo. If I get a divorce, everything I have ever worked for will be lost, including half of a rather generous pension, my home, custody of my children, etc. Gay people want this? Or, do they want a form of forced acceptance?

 

I hate to get flimsy, but it is not easy for me to take a stand on this issue.

 

PS: Before you attack, NO, I do NOT liken bestiality to 2 adults being gay. The reference was ONLY made in terms of lifting restrictions.

[John Adams]

>>>>It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess.<<<<

 

Honestly, I have a tough time with the issue. Yes, I have a problem with the govt. being involved in the bedrooms of America. Otoh, what shall we do when people sue because they want to marry their brother, or their German Sheppard? This may sound nuts, but do you doubt for even a second that someone will take these issues to court? I do not.

 

Gays are far better off the way things are imo. If I get a divorce, everything I have ever worked for will be lost, including half of a rather generous pension, my home, custody of my children, etc. Gay people want this? Or, do they want a form of forced acceptance?

 

I hate to get flimsy, but it is not easy for me to take a stand on this issue.

 

PS: Before you attack, NO, I do NOT liken bestiality to 2 adults being gay. The reference was ONLY made in terms of lifting restrictions.

230696[/snapback]

 

You worry about the slippery slope. That's Gavin and SDS's concern too. All I can say to that is: the current topic is two adults in love who want certain benefits (not dogs, incest, or pedophilia). Just look at death benefits. In most states, the law presumes that an estate passes to spouse and then relatives. When a gay life partner dies, the estate of the deceased should follow that traditional pattern. It should go to the spouse or spouse-equivalent.

 

Others bemoan the burden on the system for additional healthcare and the like (you didn't mention this). But what's stopping the 95% of straight people from marrying for benefits? Straight people don't marry for convenience, for the most part, because marriage is a serious contract. Why would the minority of gay people do anything different?

[KurtGodel77]

I really dislike the term activist judges.  Part of the purpose of even having a judicial system is to protect the interests of the individual against that of a majority.  Basically, there needs to be some system allowing you to do unpopular things.  The courts struck down anti-inter-racial marriage laws a few decades ago, and it went against the will of the majority.  Brown v. Board of Ed is another case.  Segregation was popular, because it imposed the will of a majority on the minority - it got trumped by equal protection under the law, just like this. 

 

Legislatures can NOT be trusted to protect any minority or any individual.  That's why we need courts.

229113[/snapback]

Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace.

[DC Tom]

Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace.

235149[/snapback]

 

You have got to be kidding.

[John Adams]

You have got to be kidding. 

235193[/snapback]

 

Give him credit for consistency.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace.

235149[/snapback]

You have been far off before, but this one takes the cake. I hope Tom doesn't delete it so everyone can see how stupid it looks.

[nobody]

We all just need to pray that god will show the judicial elite the errors of their way.

[Rubes]

We all just need to pray that god will show the judicial elite the errors of their way.

235479[/snapback]

 

Can we then pray that God will later show the religious conservatives the errors or their way, too?

[KurtGodel77]

You have been far off before, but this one takes the cake.  I hope Tom doesn't delete it so everyone can see how stupid it looks.

235461[/snapback]

To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse.

 

The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide.

[RuntheDamnBall]

To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse.

 

The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide.

235565[/snapback]

Man, who knew that interracial couples were committing "marital genocide"? This is a serious problem, Kurt. Thanks for raising our awareness.

 

Maybe if there were a death of "global racial diversity" (which I see happening sometime around 30450) it wouldn't be such a bad thing. People sure as hell couldn't blame all their problems on black or white people. I don't know where beauty and justice and truth factor into all this, but I suppose two people of different races loving and caring for each other is unjust and ugly to you?

 

Keep firing away, man, you look wholly ridiculous.

[KurtGodel77]

Man, who knew that interracial couples were committing "marital genocide"?  This is a serious problem, Kurt.  Thanks for raising our awareness. 

 

Maybe if there were a death of "global racial diversity" (which I see happening sometime around 30450) it wouldn't be such a bad thing.  People sure as hell couldn't blame all their problems on black or white people.  I don't know where beauty and justice and truth factor into all this, but I suppose two people of different races loving and caring for each other is unjust and ugly to you?

 

Keep firing away, man, you look wholly ridiculous.

235574[/snapback]

I saw a report indicating that the number of naturally blonde people is declining, and will reach essentially zero by the year 2200. That's at least one indication that global marital genocide is proceeding at a much faster pace than you seem to realize.

 

Environmentalists worry about whether a particular subspecies of feline or bird or other animal may be going extinct. The Siberian Tiger, for example can interbreed successfully with other tigers, and even with lions. Even so, there is--and should be--concern about the fact this wonderful and unique creature may be going the way of the dinosaurs. How much more then should we be concerned about the preservation of the various human subspecies!

 

We don't understand race, and cannot understand it in this day and age, when political correctness counts more than honesty or truth. Future generations will curse us if we choose to destroy something irreplaceable that we do not even understand.

[slothrop]

To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse.

 

The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide.

235565[/snapback]

 

I am frickin' speachless. Was this excerpt from a 1939 Nazi rally speech? This thread started as a semi-intelligent discussion and it evaporated into this. Wow.

[KurtGodel77]

I am frickin' speachless. Was this excerpt from a 1939 Nazi rally speech? This thread started as a semi-intelligent discussion and it evaporated into this. Wow.

235611[/snapback]

In my original post, I wrote that any time you chose to step outside a particular worldview, those trapped inside that world view would see you as stupid or worse. Thanks for helping clarify the "or worse" part of that equation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Environmentalists worry about whether a particular subspecies of feline or bird or other animal may be going extinct. The Siberian Tiger, for example can interbreed successfully with other tigers, and even with lions. Even so, there is--and should be--concern about the fact this wonderful and unique creature may be going the way of the dinosaurs. How much more then should we be concerned about the preservation of the various human subspecies!

235598[/snapback]

 

WOW.

 

Subspecies? Someone from Africa is still a homo sapien. They're not a different SPECIES, they're a different CULTURE.

[KurtGodel77]

WOW.

 

Subspecies? Someone from Africa is still a homo sapien. They're not a different SPECIES, they're a different CULTURE.

235720[/snapback]

I never said that different races are different species; but that they are different subspecies. The gene pools of the different races have been separated for 100,000 years, and that's enough time for them to have become different subspecies. Which is a good thing, because it means there is more diversity within the overall gene pool. There is no sense in attacking or destroying this diversity by using marriage as a weapon against it.

[DC Tom]

In my original post, I wrote that any time you chose to step outside a particular worldview, those trapped inside that world view would see you as stupid or worse. Thanks for helping clarify the "or worse" part of that equation.

235627[/snapback]

 

Of course, you forget the very important point that the worldview you step into must have some sort of demonstrable grounding in reality. Otherwise, it's just mental illness.

 

Now go find a good pshrink. The judicial elite propagating their liberal agenda of "marital genocide"?

[Rubes]

Of course the original subject of this thread was "gay marriage", which, if I'm not mistaken, is an issue of love and union rather than reproduction. Where's the genetic suicide in this?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I never said that different races are different species; but that they are different subspecies. The gene pools of the different races have been separated for 100,000 years, and that's enough time for them to have become different subspecies. Which is a good thing, because it means there is more diversity within the overall gene pool. There is no sense in attacking or destroying this diversity by using marriage as a weapon against it.

235753[/snapback]

 

No, Kurt, Someone from Africa is not Homo Sapiens Africensis. They're Homo Sapiens.

[DC Tom]

Of course the original subject of this thread was "gay marriage", which, if I'm not mistaken, is an issue of love and union rather than reproduction. Where's the genetic suicide in this?

235780[/snapback]

 

According to someone here (I forget who), the propensity for "gayness" will be passed on to future generations as the species mutates so that men prefer men sexually, until such point as we all go extinct.

 

It was a really elegant theory except for...well, everything. Wish I could remember precisely whose it was.