Posted on 07/06/2006 6:45:29 PM PDT by neverdem
New York's highest court today turned back a broad attempt by gay and lesbian couples across the state to win the right to marry and raise children under New York State's marriage law, saying that denying marriage to same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution.
In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.
The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, who was appointed by Gov. George Pataki, found that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on rational social goals, primarily the protection and welfare of children.
"Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals," Judge Smith wrote in his 22-page opinion. For example, he wrote, it could be argued that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, a mother and a father, rather than by gay or lesbian couples.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, both appointed by Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Democrat. Judge Kaye warned that future generations would look back at yesterday's decision as "an unfortunate misstep," and would consider the barring of gay marriage as an injustice akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage, an analogy the majority on the court rejected.
Gay and lesbian groups viewed the decision as a major setback, even though the court's ruling was not altogether unexpected.
"Today is a sad day for all New Yorkers who believe in the constitutional guarantee of...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I had anemona hartocollis a few years back.Some antibiotics cleared it right up.
If Gay marriage is approved, then what about bisexuals? To be fair, marriage cannot be limited to just two people. It must allow for at least four people so that a man and a woman can each have a bisexual partner. But if marriage is now defined as between two men and two women, why can’t it be any four people. Why limit it just four people? Why can’t I marry all my cousins? It would save me a lot on health insurance?
The court turned back a BROAD attempt...hahaha...thats funny.
I contend that the correct finding was reached, but with flawed reasoning. The "prejudice card" has been played effectively by the left to paint with a broad, though illogical, brush those values they deem inimical to their agenda. Prejudice, by definition, is an illogical bent against something or someone based on flawed or irrational beliefs. Ample concrete evidence has been presented by both sides as to the destructive and disease-ridden nature of homosexual culture: Life spans reduced by an average of 20 years; the exponential propensity of continued promiscuity resulting in the dissemination of various STD's, not the least of which is HIV, into the general public; etc. A court seeking out the truth of a matter would have to be willfully blind to ignore these undeniable facts.
Ignorance as a basis for discrimination? Unjustified. "Prejudice?" Nonexistent.
Bomb tunnel, flood city NY Daily News, linked, broke the story.
Stem Cells Without Moral Corruption It's hard to believe WaPo gave this a guest OpEd column.
Nuclear weapons: The next nuke Take a gander. You may have to register, but this was free from Nature, not news@nature.com
Nuclear weapons: The next nuke Here's the thread. It's URL is lame. Admin mod was notified.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This was a case where NY's top court declined to engage in judicial activism, thanks to Pataki appointees no less. In states like Georgia, where people have the right to make initiatives, etc., it's been a no-brainer so far. Knock wood, and keep praying!
I was in Massachusetts this past weekend and visited a friend who has been working with pro-family groups the past three years, especially Focus on the Family (James Dobson's group). She explained to me that tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12th, the Mass. legislature is scheduled to vote on whether or not to put on the ballot in November 2008 a referendum on gay marriage.
Only 1/4 of the Mass. legislature has to vote for this referendum, which means only 50 legislators. BUT they have to repeat this legislative vote once more next year (2007). IF 1/4 of the legislators in Mass. vote YES -- to put the gay marriage issue to a vote of the people in 2008 -- and they vote YES two years in a row, then it will indeed go to the people of Massachusetts.
Of course, the people of Mass., by a large majority, want to protect the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. So the gays of Mass. know they will lose if it is ever allowed to come before the people.
I ask all here on FreeRepublic to please pray (if you are so inclined) for the legislators of Massachusetts to vote YES for the people's referendum on Wednesday, July 12th.
Also, in case anybody here actually lives in Massachusetts, would you please, please call your state legislator and voice your approval of traditional marriage?
If there were no other reason, the most fundamental reason is the most important: Children cannot come into this world without a biological mother and father. They cannot function properly either, in the most healthy and productive way, without a loving mother and father. Of course, no law can force all heterosexual familes to be good for children, but the law should never work AGAINST public acknowledgement of the needs (and RIGHTS) of kids.
PLEASE, PLEASE do not give up on Massachusetts. There are many good, decent, God-loving people there who need to be supported. Also, don't descend to gay-bashing. Just uphold the positive, assert the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people in society (children), and stand firm. God is the author of the laws of Creation, and no human society can long thwart those laws and continue.
Thank you.
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.