Posted on 07/06/2006 7:19:45 AM PDT by Military family member
The New York Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples, and that state lawmakers, not the courts, are better suited to consider the issue.
In a 4-2 decision that has been eagerly awaited by both sides in the gay marriage debate, the court, the highest in the state's judiciary system, concluded that the legislature could have "a rational basis" for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, in large part because of their ability to bear children.
The court did not rule that the state should not or could not allow gay marriages, only that the state constitution did not require that it allow them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
another good spin job from the NYT
Is that headline intentionally misleading, or is it *just me* and that I need some more coffee? (Already had 3 cups.)
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
The New York State Court of Appeals refused to recognize same-sex marriage in a ruling issued on Thursday, saying the issue was a question for the Legislature to decide.
It doesn't say they should consider it...it say they should decide it. Typical leftists...can't be honest to save their lives.
Typical media garbage, it's not you. A total disconnect from the actual decision. Just reading part of the decision spells it out concerning a man and a woman in the legal writings going back decades and decades ago.
The point is that the laws can be changed by the legislature. The Times once again takes its advocacy and puts it in the headline.
They're lying.
Yikes! Did common sense just break out in the New York courts?
Gays can and have already gotten married. People of the same sex can't.
This must be utterly confusing to most libs who thought they understood how government worked - that the courts actually DO NOT IN FACT MAKE LAWS, LEGISLATORS DO! Breathtaking fresh air blast for a change.
That's the headline the NY Times posted. I loved it.
No obvious *agenda* that I can see, M! How do these medidiots get away with such crap, day after day after day? No one calls them on their lies. They even skate by with treason, without impunity! You and I'd be in a dark prison cell, long ago, like the 'Pendelton 8' Marines.
(((sigh)))
no NYT barf alert?
GA also upheld their constitutional amendment defining marriage.
ALERT look for media to portray this as if homosexual marriage was already the law of the land.
I think the NY judges are trying to head off a constitutional amendment. Opponents of traditional marriage vow to appeal further.
Souter and Ginsberg are going to get this case.
seems more like a "not my job" statement.
IOW it is not the court's job it is the legislature.
IOOW the homosexuals should take this to the legislature or the people and stop humiliating the courts with this sexual garbage.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples, and that state lawmakers, not the courts, are better suited to consider the issue.
Better suited? LOL Apparently the NYT is in spin mode yet again. How about the reality that legislation involving societal accomodation and privelege is rightly within the domain of the people's legislature EXCLUSIVELY. No "contrued" leftist realities allowed...
- Washington: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in March 2005 in a case in which 19 couples seek to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act. It's unclear when the court might rule.
- New Jersey: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Feb. 15; it's unclear when the court might rule.
- New York: On July 6, 2006 the state Court of Appeals, held the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."
- Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously on July 6, 2006 that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
- California: A state court last year ruled that barring same-sex marriage is against the state Constitution. An appeals court is to hear the case on July 10. The three-judge panel will have 90 days to rule. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
- Maryland: A judge on January 20 struck down a 1973 state ban on same-sex marriages. The state has appealed the ruling.
- Connecticut: A state judge heard arguments in a gay marriage case on March 20. An appeal is expected whatever the outcome.
- Iowa: A trial in a gay marriage lawsuit is scheduled before a state judge for Oct. 23.
Please ping me with any updates and or corrections to this.
This has now been changed to a different headline:
"N.Y. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban"
by a different writer:
"ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS"
Weird.
Activist courts bump.
Who CARES what they think "should" be law.
Consider Massachusetts, where they insisted the legislature make it so.
highlander has nailed this latest lie/spin by the Ny Slimes. Compare their lying/spinning headline versus what the court said:
"Leave it to the NYT to spin it. This is what the Reuters article states...
The New York State Court of Appeals refused to recognize same-sex marriage in a ruling issued on Thursday, saying the issue was a question for the Legislature to decide.
It doesn't say they should consider it...it say they should decide it. Typical leftists...can't be honest to save their lives."
Viscious homosexuals are on a jihad to eradicate every vestige of the American establishment, irregardless of the cost to our Nation, in terms of our political stability and the loss of legions of youngsters lured into the homosexual lifestyle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.