New York Court Rules Gays Must Be Allowed To Marry

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020405nyMarr.htm
(New York City) A New York State court ruled Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

"This is a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers," said Susan Sommer, Supervising Attorney at Lambda Legal and the lead attorney on the case.

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law. 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."

Lambda filed the suit last March in Manhattan on behalf of 5 gay and lesbian couples. (story)

The case was the first of its kind to be filed in New York since the Massachusetts high court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to full marriage under that state's Constitution. (story)

In today's ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan said, "Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love. Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."

"I was even more moved than I thought I'd be when I heard about this ruling. All of us cried; me, Mary Jo and our 15-year-old daughter. For the first time, our family is being treated with the respect and dignity that our friends, coworkers and neighbors automatically have," said Jo-Ann Shain, a 51-year-old New York City resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Mary Jo Kennedy, 49.

"Last week, Mary Jo and I celebrated our 23rd anniversary together, but we've never had all the protections and rights that come with marriage. We need these protections
to take responsibility for each other and for our daughter, and we are enormously grateful that the court saw that and said our family should be treated equally."

Another of the couples was Daniel Hernandez, 46, and Nevin Cohen, 42, who have been together for over six years.

When the suit was filed Hernandez said they were looking for the same rights as those enjoyed by his parents.

"We're lucky to both have parents who've been happily married for more than 50 years," said Hernandez. "Is it too much to want that for ourselves?

Justice Ling-Cohan stayed today's ruling 30 days in case there is an appeal.

Ultimately, the legality of gay marriage in New York is likely to be decided by the Court of Appeal.

Yesterday an Albany court ruled that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

But when they tried to get marriage licenses from the Albany City Clerk's office they were refused. The four sued Albany and the state Health Department, claiming Domestic Relations Law is gender neutral and marriages without licenses are still legally binding.

On Thursday, Justice E. Michael Kavanagh said state law doesn't specifically bar giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples; it just requires two people to be of age and legally competent.

However, Kavnagh rule, "the statute is replete with other references ... that this was, in fact, the intent that marriage be reserved for couples of the opposite sex."
Seems pretty simple, imo. Equal protection.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
It's been sad to see the promotion of legislation that promoted intolerance of tolerance (aka Hatred) toward homosexuals. I'm glad someone stepped up and said, "Hey, this is against our own laws to do."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
:thumbsup:

Good for NY. It's doubtful the powers that be will allow this to stand for long, but each one of these is a small victory and eventuall they'll accumulate into a larger victory.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,759
10,355
146
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

You prove his point.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

Show me where anyone has ever demanded equal rights for interspecies relations. :roll:

 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

How is it filthy and why is it a disgrace and why is it disgusting?
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I knew it wouldn't be long until somebody brought up the ridiculous pet argument.

That said, I'm not crazy about the word marriage for gay relationships and I do think it's going to be harder to argue against polygamy. If the religio-nuts were smart they concentrate on actual human relationships instead of trying to be taken seriously when talking about hamsters.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.
Hmm...I didn't realize this judge just now created the Fourteenth Amendment. I was under the impression it was created...oh...almost 150 years ago.
 

Bonesdad

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 2002
2,213
0
76
Thank God, there are still people who believe that the USA is about EQUALITY. Not just equality for those we think should have it. Everyone who supports banning gay marriage is not a patriot.
 

Edaindil

Member
Jan 27, 2005
34
0
0
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

You prove his point.


I second that! Equal rights for all human beings and maybe pets just to spite some people.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.

How would this destroy that separation? Amendments are being proposed that would ban gay marriages, and those are passed by Congress and then the President. The Supreme Court can rule those unconstitutional if they are passed, but the President nominates the Supreme Court justices, who are then approved by Congress. It is the duty of judges to judge, based on their own judgement and interpretation of the law.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

Really? I have yet to see any movement for people that want to marry their pets.

You're absolutely right it's digusting... however it's not like you have to particiate in it...
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

Really? I have yet to see any movement for people that want to marry their pets.

You're absolutely right it's digusting... however it's not like you have to particiate in it...


Interestingly enough, I absolutely deplore caviar. I find it disgusting, perhaps the most nauseating "food" I have ever had the displeasure to have tried. And I live under the firm belief that all other people that eat and enjoy caviar are participating in a depraved ritual of vile fish egg ingestion. However, I condone it, because it really has nothing to do with me. It is none of my business if they eat and appreciate caviar, as it has no effect on me, besides the nauseating thought that runs through my head when I think of them eating caviar, as I imagine myself taking their place.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

How is it filthy and why is it a disgrace and why is it disgusting?

its just naturally obvious isn't it. its just what he believes. just as people just believed when they passed those antimisegination laws. a black man marrying a white woman? what next? a gorrilla?*makes ape sounds*

from what i remember, classy is a black guy married to a white woman. and well.. shame on him.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I think people bring up the "pets" argument because it creates a fringe association that attempts to group homosexuals with other more obvious sexual deviants.

However, I do think there is an argument to be made for other forms of marriage, that although not conventional in today's society, are accepted in other societies as well as in the past:

1. Polygamy - while not widely practices, and perhaps not practical, the Old Testament is loaded with references to Biblical figures having more then one spouse...I believe there are some religions within our own society that accept polygamy...if we allow the definition of marriage to extend beyond heterosexuals, why not allow that line to extend farther.

2. The Magic Age of 18 - Our society places an imaginary line at the age of 18, with those over the 18 forbidden from having sexual relations with those under 18. Yet men and women hit puberty well before 18, and women are capable of having children well before 18...there was certainly a time when women were married as young as 13...granted the life expectancy of humans in those times was far shorter then it is today, but should we have legal constructs to prevent what is biologically possible.

Neither of these scenarios is practical in a modern society as most educated, liberated women would not allow themselves or their children to become subject to such antiquated norms...yet there are those who could make a legal case for either of these based on the precedent of permitting gay marriage.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

Maybe it's my Libertarian mindset, but I just can't understand why this issue keeps coming up. The article plainly says they already are married. I think it's idiotic that now they (or anyone else) have to convince the government that they're married, or for that matter feel they need to. Government should have no role in this issue period - marriage is a private and religious matter, not a government matter. Them having to beg the government to recognize them as being married would be like me converting to Judaism and wanting to go to the Justice of the Peace and show him I was circumcised to prove I'm "officially" Jewish.