BIG NEWS! GAY MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK!!

[Rick Munroe]

This is so fucking good. What a great moment. And you're all invited to Derek's and my wedding.

 

From Lambda Legal's press release:

 

"A New York State court ruled today that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry, in a decision that Lambda Legal called 'a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution’s promise of equality to all New Yorkers.' Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit last year, representing five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York City.

 

"In a 62-page decision issued this morning in New York City, 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."

 

The full details here: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1634

[Luv2play]

This is indeed good news. I wonder what the next steps are, will there be an appeal or will gay marriages start being performed? This ceratinly will galvanize the Bushites and their attempts to secure a constitutional amendment. Having never examined the various state constitutions in the US, I would ask is it a given that more states are likely to have similar results to Lambda challenges or are there significant differences that might yield different results?

 

Here in Canada we currently have seven out of ten provinces which have recognized the right of gays to marry and the federal government this week tabled legislation to cover the whole country since some provinces are opposed and for some reason there have been no challenges in those provinces. Not surprisingly, those places like Alberta have a lot of oil and beef!!! Somehow, they don't seem to like the idea of two guys or two gals hitching up!!! }(

[trilingual]

That's great news indeed! Rick and Derek, have you started your wish list at Target yet? }( And have I got an outfit to wear to the wedding!!!

 

Seriously, though, if this is upheld all the way through the NY court system, it'll be a great achievement to have gotten the right to marry in the state that's home to America's most emblematic city. This is a shot that will be heard around the world!

 

In answer to our Canadian friend's inquiry: Many states have equal protection and due process clauses in their state constitutions that mimic or are more extensive than the one in the U.S. constitution. The supreme courts of a number of states (I don't know how many off the top of my head) have ruled that the protections afforded the citizens of their states under their state constitutional provisions are broader and more extensive than the protections provided under the federal constitution. In states where that's the law, it's a reasonable supposition that same-sex marriage is required under the state's equal protection clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that some states offer broader protections to their citizens than the U.S. does, itself, so it's a fairly unassailable legal doctrine in those states whose supreme courts have adopted it. New York and California are such states. So, I believe, are Vermont, Massachusetts and New Jersey. There are others, as well.

 

The court's decision can be accessed through the website Rick posted. It's long, but worth reading. It's well written and reasoned, and explains clearly the relation of the right to marry as a fundamental liberty interest covered by the equal protection and due process clauses. The so-called conservatives should actually read the decision themselves. If they did, they'd understand how the law works, and how the decision is actually a very conservative one, in the true sense of conservatism.

 

By the way, the nomenclature of New York courts is confusing. In New York the Supreme Court is a court of first instance (i.e., a lower court). It's very likely this decision will be appealed, and New York's law will only be settled and final when its highest court (the Court of Appeals) rules on the question. Stay tuned. . .

[Ethan_NYC]

Huzzah!

 

I eagerly await the long, long road ahead.

Also, as a bi-racial fella, I thought this sentence from the article

was particularly interesting.

 

"In her decision, [the judge]Ling-Cohan cited and relied on rulings from the last century that barred, and then, permitted interracial marriages." [Newday]

 

It's a different angle I hadn't considered before. Off to ponder...

[seaboy4hire]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congrats to NY for seeing that discriminating against gays is just plain wrong! I hope that you and your sweetie will be getting hitched soon. My state is I believe about to rule on gay marriages also. I just hope that the courts look at what happend in Mass. and Canada and realize that giving us what we deserve will not stop the world from spinning. Way to go NY my jock goes off to ya!

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Bilbo]

Judging from her blessed name, may it be in high repute among us and ours forever, it doesn't seem surprising that Ling-Cohan would be mindful of racially mixed marriages. Ling looks Asian to me, and Cohan Iris, or maybe Jewish.

[Guest alanm]

There is still a long road ahead, but today's ruling in New York state is very good news. Like the civil rights struggle, our path is two steps forward one step back, if we are lucky. At some point in the future, the country will elect a president who will really push for our rights, like Lyndon Johnson did for African Americans and other minorities.

 

I remember that LBJ could not even campaign for re-election in the deep south in 1964 because of all the civil rights legislation he convinced Congress to pass. As a result, he was truly hated in the worst southern states. Lady Bird Johnson went instead and even her safety was often in doubt. LBJ was more of a westerner than a true

man of the south. Lady Bird was born and raised in the true deep south part of Texas.

 

One reason that the right wing Christians are so down on us is because they realize that they have lost the battle. It will take several decades before the red states join the blue states on gay marriage and other rights, hope I am around to see it.

[noviceny]

Just saw the 6pm news and it seems that while the ruling has been made that it is in appeal and therefore is not a law.

 

 

Great ruling, but this is the third time a ruling like this has been made about gay marriage. Although this is the first time its been cited as unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage...baby steps I guess

 

 

"I think gays should be allowed to marry. Why shouldnt they gay community be part of the same hell as the straights ?"

[trilingual]

If you read the judge's decision (accessible through the Lambda link Rick posted) you'll understand why the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on gay marriage, and why, based on its own long precedents, it will have to rule that we also have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. The only thing that can stop that is an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. That's not impossible, but I keep praying that the proponents can't muster 2/3 of each house of Congress in order to send it on to the States for ratification (3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify it in order for it to become part of the Constitution). I don't think there's a 2/3 majority in the Senate in favor of this. Possibly not in the House, either.

 

The decision also points the way to the fall of DOMA. In a telling little footnote, the court cites a case questioning that Congress or the Federal government have any right to limit the application of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which requires states and federal government to recognize each other's official acts (like marriages). This will be fun, in a way, watching the "strict constructionists" twist and turn, because just as the Supreme Court has come to understand that the word "equal" means exactly that (i.e., there's no such thing as "a little bit equal," or "partially equal," or "more equal than not," or "separate but equal"), which is certainly a strict construction of that clause, the same applies to the word "full." The Constitution doesn't allow for partial credit, or no credit, or just a little bit of credit of another state's official acts. It's either "full" credit, or it violates the Constitution, in a strict construction of the provision.

 

The judge also, somewhat wickedly, cited the dissents of Scalia and company in the Lawrence case (which overturned sodomy laws as an unconstitutional violation of privacy and due process) in SUPPORT of finding NY's statute unconstitutional. It's all pretty delicious reading, if you're into this kind of stuff!!!

[Guest alanm]

I agree about the lack of votes to pass a constitutional amendment in the Senate. There are at least five moderate Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Spector, Chafee, Mc Cain) who would almost certainly vote against such an amendment. That's assuming that Arlen Spector has decided to retire after this term. Am I forgetting any other moderate, surely there must be one or two others.

[Rick Munroe]

>Just saw the 6pm news and it seems that while the ruling has

>been made that it is in appeal and therefore is not a law.

 

Does this mean I have to call Derek on his cell phone and tell him to come home? He's out shopping for my engagement ring.

[Epigonos]

Before everyone gets too excited we all need to understand to difference between a state statute and a state constitutional amendment. Several years ago the California voters passed an iniitative statute defining marriage a the union between a man and a woman. That is currently state law in California but if challanged it "could" be declared unconsitutional by the California State Supreme Court. In California initative statutes require on a simple majority vote to pass while an initative constitutional amendment requires a two thirds vote to pass. Backers of the California initative chose to go for the easier simple majority vote. If in the future they choose to go for an initative constitutional amendment and get the two thirds vote, a definite possibility, there is absolutely nothing the State Supreme Court can do about it. They have no jurisdiction over the State Constitution and therefore cannot rule on the consitutionality of an amendment to that constitution. They can only rule on statutes. This, I believe, is the case in all other states as well. In the last November elections several state, Ohio included I think, passed constitutional amendments to their state constitutions declaring marriage a union between a man and a woman and that is the end of it in those states unless the United States Congress passes and the President signs a bill alowing same sex marriages -- fat chanch with George W and the current House and Senate.

[Guest Mikel]

I wanna be best man!

[trilingual]

>In the last

>November elections several state, Ohio included I think,

>passed constitutional amendments to their state constitutions

>declaring marriage a union between a man and a woman and that

>is the end of it in those states unless the United States

>Congress passes and the President signs a bill alowing same

>sex marriages -- fat chanch with George W and the current

>House and Senate.

 

No, you're mistaken. Fortunately! State constitutions can't contain provisions that violate the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court can invalidate such provisions on those grounds. If you read the New York decision, you will see how the Supreme Court arguments against those new state amendmens will go. They're doomed, except in the unlikely event of the Supreme Court doing a 180º turn on generations of jurisprudence about marriage, equal protection, due process, and liberty interests, or in the marginally more likely event of an anti-gay-marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which WOULD end the matter, once and for all.

 

Congress and the President can't enact laws forcing states to marry (or not marry) anyone. Marriage and family law are matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the states. For a variety of reasons, the federal DOMA is probably unconstitutional, but it has yet to reach the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. It would seem, however, to be in breach of the full faith and credit clause, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

 

So there's hope, although none of this will be fast and easy, and there will be a lot of intervening ugliness along the way. Social change doesn't come easily in the U.S. of A.

[Epigonos]

I was speaking in reference to the California Supreme Court not the United States Supreme Court. However, if Congress were to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman by a two thirds majority and three fourths of the states were to radify it then the U.S. Supreme Court would have its hands tied. You are correct that if that doesn't happen then the matter is left to the individual states unless the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to intervene on the grounds that the marriage amendments to the state constitutions violated the Federal Constitution -- NOT LIKELY with the current makeup of the court.

[trilingual]

> You are correct that

>if that doesn't happen then the matter is left to the

>individual states unless the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to

>intervene on the grounds that the marriage amendments to the

>state constitutions violated the Federal Constitution -- NOT

>LIKELY with the current makeup of the court.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't INTERVENE in such matters. Courts are passive bodies. They can only get involved when two or more parties bring a dispute before them for resolution. That's why the Supreme Court hasn't intervened so far to overturn DOMA, or the recent anti-gay-marriage amendments to numerous state constitutions. They can't. Nobody has filed a case about them yet, or if they have, they haven't yet worked their way up through the appeals courts to reach the Supreme Court.

 

However, this court IS likely, based on its recent precedents in Romer and Lawrence, to hear such cases and find that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution, for all of the same reasons discussed in the New York judge's opinion. Although this may seem surprising and outrageous to the Falwells and Dobsons of the world, the decisions are actually based on very conservative and "strict constructionist" interpretations of the text of the Constitution and past precedents. But the distortions of what the Court has done for the purpose of promoting the KKKristian KKKrazy agenda is a subject for a whole different posting!!!

[eastbayguy]

>This is so fucking good. What a great moment. And you're

>all invited to Derek's and my wedding.

 

Well, I, for one, will plan on attending.

 

Was in Kansas for the last week. My very conservative, right wing minister friend in KS has now decided that the best way to protect marriage is to ban/restrict/limit divorce! His current opinion is that banning gay marriage is a waste of time. (Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse?)

 

Will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

--EBG

[Guest zipperzone]

>Nobody has filed a case about them yet, or if they have, they

>haven't yet worked their way up through the appeals courts to

>reach the Supreme Court.

>

>However, this court IS likely, based on its recent precedents

>in Romer and Lawrence, to hear such cases and find that laws

>prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution,

>for all of the same reasons discussed in the New York judge's

>opinion.

 

Well, might I suggest that it had better work it's way through the system with great dispatch before shrub get the chance to fuck with the Supreme Court's makup with new appointees.