Paterson and Gay Marriage

30 May

The other day, Governor Paterson declared that New York would recognize gay marriages performed in Canada, Massachusetts, and California.

Naturally, some are up in arms about it. Outgoing crap Congressman Tom Reynolds said,

This is a terrible decision, directed in a secretive and abusive manner, designed to circumvent any sort of public hearing or comment from the New York people. The Governor should full well know the rightful role and prerogative the legislature has in the rule of law in this matter.

Therefore, I am calling on the Governor to suspend this ill-advised executive directive. I intend to call the Catholic Conference, the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, legislative leaders and other interested parties to assist in looking at the options available in helping cease and desist the Governor’s directive.

Frankly, this is yet another example of a New York Governor abusing his power to disregard the legislature, the rule of law and most importantly the people of New York. Whether it is trying to issue drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants or attempting to recognize gay marriages this pattern of circumventing the legislature and the will of the New York people is not only troubling but should not be recognized by the legislative or judicial branch or the public as a whole.

Why?

I mean, why not just consider my Massachusetts marriage invalid in New York State, too? It was entered into outside the purview of New York statute and law, after all.

I understand that there are people who are opposed to this quite strenuously on a variety of grounds. Primary among them is religion. But when you subtract relgion from the argument, what are you left with? What is the reason why we shouldn’t just let gay people get married to each other? Does it really cheapen or weaken heterosexual marriage? Then ban divorce. Is it really equal to letting pedophiles marry kids, or letting people marry pets? Of course not, and it’s just idiotic to suggest that.

Watch liberal pinko commie Bill O’Reilly tackle the issue with a gay marriage opponent:

[HTML1]

UPDATE: There’s a debate going on in comments, where some are alleging that Paterson’s directive to state agencies that they recognize same-sex unions entered into legally out-of-state is an improper usurpation of democracy and the rule of law. Naturally, I disagree strenuously.

But I wanted to add that I listened to Paterson’s statement on this issue just now, and to his rationale. For instance, New York State has no such thing as “common-law marriage”, but other states do. We have traditionally recognized the validity of those unions when those couples come to New York.

Furthermore, Paterson’s order is based on a February 1st 4th Appellate Division decision, (penned by Republican Supreme Court Justice Erin Peradotto), in the case of Martinez v. County of Monroe, linked to here. (.pdf) The key point and rationale:

For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the “positive law” of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of “natural law” (Matter of May, 305 NY 486, 491; see Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521, 524; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602, 605; see generally Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18, 24-26). Thus, if a marriage is valid in the place where it was entered, “it is to be recognized as such in the courts of this State, unless contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute” (Moore, 92 NY at 524; see also Thorp, 90 NY at 606; Van Voorhis, 86 NY at 25-26). Under that “marriage-recognition” rule, New York has recognized a marriage between an uncle and his niece “by the half blood” (May, 305 NY at 488), common-law marriages valid under the laws of other states (see Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292-293), a marriage valid under the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada of a man and a woman both under the age of 18 (see Donohue v Donohue, 63 Misc 111, 112-113), and a “proxy marriage” valid in the District of Columbia (Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777), all of which would have been invalid if solemnized in New York.

We conclude that plaintiff’s marriage does not fall within either of the two exceptions to the marriage-recognition rule. “[A]bsent any New York statute expressing clearly the Legislature’s intent to regulate within this State marriages of its domiciliaries solemnized abroad, there is no positive law in this jurisdiction” to prohibit recognition of a marriage that would have been invalid if solemnized in New York (May, 305 NY at 493 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Van Voorhis, 86 NY at 37). The Legislature has not enacted legislation to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered into outside of New York, and we thus conclude that the positive law exception to the general rule of foreign marriage recognition is not applicable in this case.

(Emphasis added.) So, as you can see, there is not only legal precedent, but legal justification and rationale for what Paterson did, which is merely to implement the holding of the 4th Department across all state agencies and entities.

That’s how a democracy works.

47 Responses to “Paterson and Gay Marriage”

  1. Russell May 30, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    The answer to your question “why” and the point of what Reynolds was saying is about a Governor obviously circumvent the will of the people. Where’s your outrage over the squashing of the democratic process you champion so often on other issues? I guess, like so many other things, a person can say and act how ever he wants as long as it’s in agreement with your views, but look out if it runs counter to what you think is right.

    That’s what Reynolds was talking about, but you had to change the subject of the debate because that topic is not convenient for you. Okay, I’ll play along with that, too. The state’s interest in marriage goes beyond religion and those interests are not realized in a gay marriage.

  2. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 10:50 am #

    1. When was the referendum held to legalize heterosexual marriage?

    2. If the state’s interest in marriage goes beyond religion and those interests are not realized in a gay marriage, please enlighten us as to those interests, and then explain how gay marriage fails to realize them.

  3. Queen Carlotta May 30, 2008 at 11:40 am #

    Good lord Tom, you’ve put on another twenty pounds! Is he so unpopular that he now seeks outs the comfort and company of those who believe the world is flat?

  4. Russell May 30, 2008 at 11:44 am #

    1. Yes, when was that referendum held? Should the governor be allowed to act without even determining the will of the people?

    2. The interest is in producing future citizens, taxpayers, soldiers, producers, consumers, etc. If you do not understand how a gay marriage does not realize that, you might need to have a sit down with your mother.

  5. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 11:59 am #

    You’re right. Since there appears to have been no popular vote approving heterosexual marriage, it must immediately be repealed.

    As for the purpose of marriage being procreation, again you are savvy. All childless marriages must be considered null and void, and people who are infertile must be banned from obtaining a marriage license. Any change to that policy must be made through referndum.

  6. Chaz May 30, 2008 at 12:24 pm #

    @Russell

    Don’t forget that Pundit doesn’t believe in a true democracy. He believes in democracy when the results are what he wants.

  7. Should be obvious May 30, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    One doesn’t need to reference religion. Gay relationships are unnatural from a biological perspective — an aberration. Perhaps the thinking person just doesn’t wish to condone subjecting evolutionary processes to the unnatural biological perversion that you champion, any more than we would willingly advocate subjecting normal evolutionary processes to humans copulating with dogs or cats, horses, etc., all similarly unnatural from a biological perspective. And this point of view has nothing to do with religion. Also, the point the previous poster made relating to the ‘will of the people’ in NY is a good one, especially taking into account my point here.

  8. N May 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm #

    Gay relationships are unnatural from a biological perspective — an aberration.

    Right. And all those bonobos practicing orgies in the jungles of Africa are an “aberration”. And all the dogs that hump cats, furniture, and my leg are an “aberration” too. I don’t know when the last time you read a biology textbook was, but the natural world is a pretty diverse place, with lots of “aberrations”. To say nothing of the human world.

    Coincidentally, I was raised a Catholic and consider myself to be pretty socially conservative.

    The solution to these problem is quite simple. Government shouldn’t be in the “marriage business”. It should be in the “civil union” business. Marriage should be a religious construct, so if a church wants to recognize a marriage between partners of the same sex, go for it. I don’t think the Catholic Church will anytime soon. But at the same time, it is incredibly inhumane to let loved ones go without the legal benefits of being loved.

  9. Russell May 30, 2008 at 1:07 pm #

    Seriously, BP, it is ridiculous how loose your principles are. Democracy only matters when it’s convenient for you and apparently, now so does law. Is this how you operate in the court room? You’re such a hypocrite it’s amazing. There’s no consistency to your logic. Perhaps you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, but at least show yourself some respect.

  10. Russell May 30, 2008 at 1:12 pm #

    And the state has denied licenses to people that could result in poor offspring. That’s why there have been laws denying marriage to certain relatives. I suppose you would also support fathers marrying their daughters or brothers and sisters or 1st cousins because you’re so open-minded and tolerant.

  11. hank May 30, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    I believe stongly that homosexuals (DO NOT FUCK UP THE WORD GAY BY APPLYING IT TO THEM) have the right to be as miserable as anyone else.

    I was taught, and believe that the word “Marriage” as defined by the Catholic faith was a union between a man and a woman.

    I’ve also never believed that the State had any right to regulate what is for most people a religious ceremony. You remember all that “seperation of Church and State” nonsense.

    If there is a church willing to bind a homosexual couple together in the ritual of that church, there’s no reason for the state to be involved anyway.

    I assumed (probably inaccurately) that the Pundit was a Catholic, considering where his parents came from. If he is, then he’s likely the same kind of Catholic that the Kennedy’s and John Kerry are–not very good ones.

    I was taught and believe that God created all things on this earth. I was taught God was infallible and made no mistakes. Well it doesn’t take too long working in hospitals with sick kids, deformed kids, etc to see God bones up from time to time. Homosexuals can’t help the way they feel. Nobody would choose the toughness of that lifestyle, whether buried in the closet, in a monogamous relationship, or flaming drag queen.

    Until I get the Pink message slip from the Creator on this–Just like on Abortion–I’ll choose to tend my own garden. When God decides to judge the world, homosexuals are likely in for a big surprise–or the Bible is wrong. Take your pick.

    As long as they aren’t bothering me, or jumping in my face demanding my acceptance of their lifestyle, I don’t care.

    However I also believe the Governor by default should keep his nose out of it. He’s only asking for trouble, and he’ll likely get it.

  12. OPNY May 30, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    Buffalopundit Says:

    1. When was the referendum held to legalize heterosexual marriage?

    Then what does a marriage license reflect? At some point a law was passed that said that those who wanted to get married had to obtain a license.

  13. Denizen May 30, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    If everything were to be determined by “will of the people”, then several states would still have black people forced to sit on the back of the bus.

  14. Vivian May 30, 2008 at 2:00 pm #

    OMG , What is Reynolds trying to prove with all the crap he was covering up in DC. Now all of a sudden he has a set of moral bearings. Where were those bearings when the asshat was facilitating the antics of his congressional buddies.

  15. Colin May 30, 2008 at 2:01 pm #

    Plenty of stupid bigots here.

  16. Russell May 30, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    No, that’s not true Denizen. The laws that changed that went through the proper legislative process. It all changed by acts of Congress, the elected representatives chosen by the people. That’s how a democracy works. BP suddenly seems to think it’s okay for an executive to bypass the legislature and the people and enact his own laws. Although BP’s adamantely opposed to it anywhere else in the world and on most other issues here in the US, it’s suddenly perfectly okay with him this time.

  17. Colin May 30, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    Why does there need to be a law passed in order for this to take effect? Gay people can get married in California. NYS recognizes out-of-state marriages. Therefore, those marriages are recognized in NYS. Duh.

  18. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    @Russell & @Chaz, I think that your definition of “democracy” is a bit too narrow.

    Seriously, BP, it is ridiculous how loose your principles are. Democracy only matters when it’s convenient for you and apparently, now so does law. Is this how you operate in the court room? You’re such a hypocrite it’s amazing. There’s no consistency to your logic. Perhaps you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, but at least show yourself some respect.

    Really? I wasn’t aware that judges and governors were not somehow part of “democracy” as we have it set up in this country. Furthermore, Paterson did not unilaterally declare that gay marriage was legal, and could be carried out in New York. He merely declared that gay marriages legally performed elsewhere would be recognized by New York. Seems pretty tame by any standard, and I don’t see how that could possibly adversely affect anyone in the state. Who’s the victim here? Who’s aggrieved by this? Tell me specifically how this affects any New Yorker in any palpable, negative way. It doesn’t. Any opposition to this is a bunch of moralizing nonsense devoid of rational basis.

    And the state has denied licenses to people that could result in poor offspring. That’s why there have been laws denying marriage to certain relatives. I suppose you would also support fathers marrying their daughters or brothers and sisters or 1st cousins because you’re so open-minded and tolerant.

    No, I wouldn’t. Because it’s a false analogy, and you know it (I hope). Then again, I took away the bestiality and pedophilia arguments from you, so this is all you’re left with. In any one of those three cases, you have an actual victim; the animal, the child, or the future hemophiliac Hapsburg lookalike. A child cannot give consent. An animal cannot give consent, so those arguments are invalid.

    Prohibiting close relatives from marrying is based in medical and genetic science to prevent the very high likelihood of birth defect. So, we have a rational basis behind all of those laws, which serve to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves.

    You think I have no respect for the rule of law? That I conveniently shunt it aside when convenient? What a load of garbage. Did the Supreme Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 have respect for the rule of law? Or was it Virginia that passed the law have the appropriate respect for law? Shall all laws passed by a majority stand, without regard to their constitutionality? That’s what you’re implying.

    The judicial branch – which, last time I checked, is an essential component of our democratic system – declared anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Every state that had one could have had a plebiscite to pass it; they could have been passed by their representative state houses, yet it did not change the fact that it was unconstitutional. Why was it unconstitutional? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, unfortunately in 1971 the Court expressly found that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to same-sex restrictions on marriage. That decision, however, does not prohibit individual states from making their own rules on this issue, as Massachusetts has (by judicial decision, incidentally).

    As far as I’m concerned, any opposition to permitting consenting homosexuals to marry is just rank homophobia, and frankly mirrors the arguments used by racists in the 1960s to protect racial purity. Why? Because in both cases, there is no victim.

    When two consenting gay people decide they want to enter into a binding and lawful marriage contract out of state, who are you to say it’s not valid elsewhere? Who is anyone to say it’s not valid? Apart from ingrained homophobia, what public policy is being protected? None. The only thing being protected is bigotry and ignorance.

    (And for the record, I’m only talking about marriage from a civil law aspect. Obviously, based on the separation of church and state, I would be vehemently opposed to any law mandating that any church condone, perform, or recognize a homosexual marriage).

    Likewise, in the 60s, who was the Virginia legislature to say that a consenting man and woman of different ethnicity or race could not lawfully marry? Who was the victim there? What public policy was being protected, except for bigotry and racist ignorance? None.

  19. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    No, that’s not true Denizen. The laws that changed that went through the proper legislative process. It all changed by acts of Congress, the elected representatives chosen by the people. That’s how a democracy works.

    Wrong.

    It was the legislature that had passed the law requiring that black people sit at the rear of a bus.

    It was the unelected Federal Court justices who ruled the Alabama (and similar) statutes to be unconstitutional:

    On June 19, 1956, the U.S. District Court’s three-judge panel ruled that Section 301 (31a, 31b and 31c) of Title 48, Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended, and Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter 6 of the Code of the City of Montgomery, 1952, “deny and deprive plaintiffs and other Negro citizens similarly situated of the equal protection of the laws and due process of law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Browder v. Gayle, 1956). The court essentially decided that the precedent of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) could be applied to Browder v. Gayle. On November 13, 1956, the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on buses, deeming it unconstitutional. The court order arrived in Montgomery, Alabama, on December 20, 1956, and the bus boycott ended the next day. However, more violence erupted following the court order, as snipers fired into buses and into King’s home, and terrorists threw bombs into churches and into the homes of many church ministers, including Martin Luther King Jr.,’s friend Ralph Abernathy

    So, Denizen is absolutely, 100% right.

    Also – I seem to recall Mr. Paterson being “elected by the people” to serve as Lieutenant Governor, and then to become Governor after Mr. Spitzer’s departure.

  20. Russell May 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    I think you have a misguided understanding of democracy as well. First of all, the judiciary interprets laws. It does not dictate them. The fact that something was declared unconstitutional does not mean it skipped the legislative process. It means the law was inconsistent with prior or superior legislation. The federal laws supersede the state laws and that’s all those courts pointed out. And really, the major turning points in the civil rights movement from these legal aspects were when Congress passed the laws. Federal courts went back and forth on those issues, just as many state legislatures did. At best, Denizen is only partially correct. Another HUGE aspect missing here is that folks like Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King change public opinion and the will of the people. That’s really what mattered most.

    Also, on the topic of democracy, we have a system of checks and balances. The governor acting unilaterally. He was not acting within the normal bounds of that system. He circumvent the legislative process. Yes, he’s an elected official and yes he has a legal right according to the state constitution to do this. However, he bucked the system and bucked democracy. He enacted a law without it going through the normal legal process, regardless of how tame the law may have been.

    I am not talking about the legal merits of gay marriage or their rights. In fact, the issue at the center of this debate doesn’t much matter. What I was saying and what I think Reynolds was saying is that the issue is about the democratic process. It does not set a good precedence for an executive to circumvent the legislature. You hate when Bush does it, but support when Paterson does it.

  21. Colin May 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    Uh, the governor may have spoken unilaterally, but I don’t see how any action was necessary. The state already recognizes marriages that take place in California. There’s no reason to assume that Californian gay marriages have to get some extra seal of approval before being recognized here.

  22. Mike May 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    Hey if Patterson legalizes marrages to Big Foot maybe Hank will move back!!!!!

  23. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    If I remember my Marbury v. Madison, it’s the court’s mandate to declare what the law is. The judiciary doesn’t merely interpret laws. It does indeed dictate them, either negatively (by ruling them unconstitutional) or by expanding their reach when appropriate.

    The Civil Rights Act wasn’t enacted until the mid-60s, yet laws prohibiting bus segregation had been ruled unconstituional almost a decade before. I’d argue that it was the court’s action – not the federal legislature’s – that directly and palpably changed bus seating arrangements, which is the only issue on the table.

    We do have a system of checks and balances, you’re right. That’s why the state Senate may very well try to overrule the governor on this issue. And at some point the judiciary might have to step in to decide who’s right. But you yourself say that Paterson has the right to do this, so your arguments about how I don’t support “democracy” were specious, at best, but certainly disingenuous.

    Not only that, but if you’ll go back and look at the update to the post I just put up, there is a judicial precedent that Paterson is following. Based on the 4th Department’s Decision, he believes that it is illegal for state agencies to refuse to recognize the legality of out-of-state gay marriages. More specifically, the court added that there is no legislative prohibition on any such recognition, nor has the Court of Appeals declared it to be against public policy. So, two of the three branches of state government have now determined that state agencies must treat legally married gay people as legally married people. Why? Because the legislature hasn’t banned it, and in America that which isn’t expressly prohibited is allowed.

    The legislature was never circumvented. It was never part of this equation.

    And Bush has nothing to do with this, and if he decided that federal agencies should also recognize legally constituted gay unions, then I would support him wholeheartedly in that.

  24. Russell May 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    No, the issue on the table with Denizen was the will of the people. Even though many courts had already ruled a certain way, the practice on the ground in the worst areas was still not in compliance. It was not until Congress took up legislation that things really turned around in all areas. And that did not happen until public opinion/the will of the people pushed for it. If what you’re saying is true and it was all the work of the courts and Denizen was 100% correct, than we had no need for MLK and all of his work was pointless.

    If Paterson is just following a precedent already set by the courts, then there was no need for him to have done what he did and all of this is a moot point. The courts already ruled on it. In the original post, you quoted Reynolds where he stated that this order was not in line with the legislature, the judiciary, or the people. These are all key components to democracy. I took that at face value and the fact that you also let that statement go further led me to think it was believable and Paterson did act unilaterally. Now that you present other evidence stating that it is in line with the judiciary, it’s a whole other animal.

  25. Celtic Tide May 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    BP,

    I’ve been open to this discussion for some time and I think you ask the key questions: How will any New Yorker be adversely affected?

    This is what it has come down to for my opinion and I think that there are potential adverse effects that include the increased cost of the social safety net, group health costs and individual insurance premiums. After all, employers pay for a portion of family medical benefits and the cost would go up when a non-employee family member is added. Anyone would be foolish to think that these costs are not passed on to the rest of the group.

    Civil unions are a better idea as long as the law puts any increased costs on the individual(s) rather than any group, company or society as a whole. If you want to have a ceremony and call it something else then go ahead. There is really very little value added to society through gay marriage/civil unions and therefore there should be very little value provided to those who choose to engage in it.

  26. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm #

    You’re right. Maybe I should heap even more scorn on Reynolds for insinuating that this was “secretive” and “abusive” when it was clearly neither.

    Furthermore, the Martinez decision only technically applied to that one case. Technically, other people would bring similar lawsuits citing Martinez as a precedent and the rule could have been applied that way, or else the governor could have just said that he’d implement the holding of the Martinez ruling across all state agencies. And that’s what he did.

    The recourse under checks & balances is for the state legislature to affirmatively ban state agency recognition of legally constituted foreign gay marriage contracts. I think that is a very unlikely scenario.

    Perhaps if you stick to arguing your own point of view and avoid directing ad hominems at me, as you invariably do, you’d come across as less of a tool.

  27. Russell May 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    Within the bounds of the conversation at the time and the information provided, it appeared Paterson was circumventing democracy, as Reynolds stated. The fact that you did not have a problem with that part of what Reynolds said and asked “why?” sure made you appear quite hypocritical. I called it as I saw it at the time. You’ve admitted in the past you are inconsistent, so I shouldn’t be a tool for pointing it out at any point. In fact, you’ve stated my pointing it out is unnecessary since it’s so obvious, so I fail to see why this case makes me a tool.

  28. Russell May 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    Oh, and your point that your marriage was, “outside the purview of New York statute and law” was untrue and misleading.

  29. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    If you read my original post, what I write practically mirrors the court’s holding in Martinez.

    Federal congressman Reynolds evidently has no respect for the rule of New York State law. And republicans used to be all for state’s rights.

  30. Colin May 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    The costs associated with marriage that Celtic Tide mentions apply to all marriages, not just same sex marriages. So that doesn’t stand as an argument against same sex marriage.

    If the bigots want to maintain a marriage ban that applies to gays but not to heterosexuals, then they’ll have to come up with some rational justification that applies only to the former but not the latter. Procreation? Nope. Increased cost in benefits? Nope. Here’s a hint — no such justification exists.

  31. Russell May 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm #

    Actually, it doesn’t mirror Martinez, it’s in direct contrast to it. You stated your marriage should be void because it’s not in line with state statutes and laws. Martinez says that opposite and there were laws before Martinez in this state that your marriage was recognized within. Martinez even states that.

  32. Buffalopundit May 30, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    I mean, why not just consider my Massachusetts marriage invalid in New York State, too? It was entered into outside the purview of New York statute and law, after all.

    No. I said it was entered into outside the purview of New York statute and law. I did not seek or obtain a New York State marriage license, and it was performed in Boston. New York law had nothing whatsoever to do with my marriage.

    The fact that it is recognized in New York? That’s the reason a gay marriage that is legally constituted in Massachusetts should be recognized by New York State.

    Seriously – as someone once said, “Perhaps you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.”

  33. Peter Farrell May 30, 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    Just wondering….

    The anti marriage crowd seems to bring up the legislative process in this issue. Yet didn’t the Legistature pass a gay marriage bill a few months back? And also did it not die there because of the inability to get it to the Senate floor?(Bruno/GOP majority)

    If the Senate changes hands, I’m guessing it goes through there and then on to the Governor’s office for signing.

    Reality is this: Every province/state that borders our own with the exception of PA has a civil union/marriage law in effect(Canada,Vermont,Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey). Some went the judicial route, others the legislative. Just a matter of time until NY is added as well.

  34. Celtic Tide May 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm #

    Sorry Colin, but you have to take into consideration not only the costs but the benefits. Society benefits from heterosexual marriage, it does not from homosexual marriage, at least not much if any and therefore the rest of society should not bear those costs. What’s wrong w/civil unions where you have no safety net or employer paid healthcare related to marriage? I know why, because there is an entitlement attitude out there that society “owes” something to everyone. Handouts please…handouts…

  35. Russell May 30, 2008 at 5:47 pm #

    If NYS had laws and statutes recognizing your marriage for over a century, as Martinez states, then your marriage was entered into under the scope of NYS law. Even though you did not get married in NYS, NYS still had laws recognizing your marriage. Therefore, it was under the purview of NYS law. Martinez took this fact a step further and pointed out that what has been in place for well over a century should also apply to gay marriages. I’m sure you understand that, but you just like playing games. And your original post made no mention of Martinez. Even if you think it mirrors Martinez, although you actually contradicted it, you’re not a branch of the government. The point that the judiciary already okayed this was not put forth ’til you updated the post with the Martinez info.

  36. mike hudson May 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    new york state does not recognize other state’s laws regarding firearms, which of course are more dear to my heart than whether gays can “marry.” if you are, say, from pennsylvania, and possess a handgun under your home state’s laws and the federal laws regarding such ownership, you can go directly to jail for driving a few miles north and exercising said rights in clymer, n.y., rather than corry, pa. which makes the whole argument about recognizing the laws of other states hypocritical liberal bullshit that now has me and a lot of other lifelong dems looking for a sane alternative.

    along the same lines, anybody see the crazy white priest attacking hillary because of her race at obama’s church on television today? obama’s fellow parishioners cheered wildly as he berated clinton on racial grounds. this comes on the heels of the church’s pastor, rev. jerimiah wright, making repeated racist remarks. but here we are asked to watch tapes made by al jazeera that characterize our own country in terms of some poor white people they managed to find in kentucky.

    the church where people cheered at the denigration of the “privileged white(s)” is where obama has occupied a pew for the past 20 years.

  37. Colin May 30, 2008 at 6:23 pm #

    Ummm, except that NYS does recognize out-of-state marriages. The fact that it doesn’t recognize the gun laws of other states doesn’t change that. But thanks for the off-topic nonsense.

  38. Chaz May 30, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    Let me guess, Buffalo Pundit is an attorney or law clerk and let me guess this too, he is a corporate attorney or piss boy at a local ambulance chaser.

    Too funny!

    It doesn’t get much richer than that.

    People like Pundit try break away from their mundane attorney lives and bring their less than stellar leagl opinion to forums like blogs. It makes them think they are smarter.

    He stated earlier that my definition of democracy was narrow, clearly his is.

  39. freida May 30, 2008 at 8:15 pm #

    @Hudson, I saw it. Father Pfleger said
    Clinton’s eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt “entitled” to the Democratic nomination and because “there’s a black man stealing my show.”

    “She just always thought that, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white.’ …

    I think He hit the nail right on the head.

  40. Matt May 30, 2008 at 10:15 pm #

    I don’t know if it’s been said already; I didn’t feel like reading through people arguing, but under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, any state has to recognize “Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of any other state.”

    As I interpret it, this makes Paterson’s statement superfluous. Perhaps someday the Constitution will be changed. But as of right now, it seems to me that discrimination against same-sex couples who have a civil union is unconstitutional.

    As for the moral issues (for the moral and the legal must be kept separate, or else anyone can spin the argument in any direction he wants), I feel that there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and, knowing that homosexuality occurs naturally and is not a choice, refuse to discriminate against someone based on how God made him. On that note, however, I do think that marriage is a religious institution defined as a union of a man and a women and should not be used to describe same-sex couples who have been granted civil rights by a government.

  41. Colin May 31, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Celtic,

    Withholding the rights and privileges that are routinely granted to people on the basis of marriage simply because the people involved are gay is discriminatory. Unless there is some rational reason to do so that is specific to gay people, it shouldn’t stand. The cost of those rights and privileges isn’t such a reason, as they are just as costly when granted to straight couples. Your judgment that straight marriages are more beneficial to society than gay marriages is groundless.

  42. Celtic Tide May 31, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    Right Colin, groundless and discriminatory. As if the public should pay for something that we do not benefit from in some way. Where else does this happen in society. There is a real, rational, positive contribution that can be cited for nearly all public programs and policies, why don’t you try to articulate them for gay marriage rather that whining about discrimination?

  43. Eisenbart May 31, 2008 at 6:46 pm #

    We’re 6 years behind Germany in this issue. The US seems to be falling behind on a lot of fronts. No wonder with people like Celtic talking non sense like he knows something about this issue.

  44. Jon Splett May 31, 2008 at 8:17 pm #

    What the hell kind of benefit are we getting from marriage again?

    A 50% divorce rate? I’m pretty sure my taxes are paying the salaries of the judges hearing those cases. How exactly is that beneficial to society?

  45. Strikeslip May 31, 2008 at 11:26 pm #

    I thought the rationale in Martinez v Monroe County was “interesting” in the sense that the judges either have an agenda or they are ignorant.

    “For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the “positive law” of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of “natural law” . . . The judges then go on to find that neither exception applied.

    The “natural law” part really seemed screwy . . . and the explanation was given short shrift in the decision.

    Since when is polygamy against “natural” law? Polygamy was part of human history for thousands of years, and is still practiced (and accepted) in some parts of the world. I can’t see where polygamy is “unnatural” … although in western society it is illegal (but maybe not in Texas anymore).

    That said, “Gay marriage,” biologically, is undeniably unnatural because the sex organs of the couple do not fit together. The fact that we don’t have a long history of gay marriage (unlike polygamy) is perhaps due to the fact that it is NOT “natural.”

    Were the judges asleep in class when sodomy was discussed . . . and about failure to “consummate” a marriage being a ground for divorce? How does one “consummate” a gay marriage without committing a crime? Perhaps we no longer have to deal with such incongruencies because laws have been liberalized. . . . but the laws certainly reflected what the court considered to be the “natural law” … but they ignored them.

    Frankly, I think we pay our judges far too much if this decision reflects the quality of their thought processes.

  46. Celtic Tide June 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm #

    Jon, The devil is in the details of the number you cite. It would be interesting to see the number of failed marriages where there are children involved, I don’t have any idea of what it would be but my opinion is that childred are better off if a two parent household and that is the benefit that society gets from hetero marriage.

    As I stated in my initial post, gay marriage is a good topic for discussion and consideration, one that I’ve been open to for some time, just tell me how the world will be a better place for everyone if it is. Noone has tried to do that here yet, why?

  47. Colin June 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    1. The benefits that society receives from gay marriage are the same as it receives from straight marriage. Both tend to provide a greater measure of social cohesion than single living, both create support systems that have a tendency to improve people lives, both allow for raising children, etc.

    2. That said, people really don’t have to justify the exercize of their rights to the state. When I go to vote, I don’t have to prove that it benefits the state. If the state wants to deny people a right, the burden is on the state to prove why that would be necessary. The potential proofs that have been offered here fail because they also apply to straight marriage, which noone has suggested be outlawed.

    3. You’re on the wrong side of history. Over any period of time you choose, the trend is clear — gay people are getting their rights recognized. Whether you like it or not, this is gonna happen.

Leave a Reply to Eisenbart Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: