filthy disease ridden queers win again...
Posted on 02/04/2008 4:05:36 PM PST by wagglebee
ROCHESTER, New York, February 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a victory for homosexual political activists, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court of New York on Friday declared that same-sex "marriages" recognized as legal in other countries must be considered valid in the state for purposes of employee benefits.
The suit to force Monroe Community College in Rochester to extend health benefits to lesbian partner Lisa Golden was brought by an employee of the college, Patricia Martinez.
Martinez and Golden undertook a marriage ceremony in Canada in 2004. Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005. A previous judge had ruled in favour of the college. The appeals court, however, ruled that the "marriage" between the two women "is entitled to recognition in New York in the absence of express legislation to the contrary."
The court ruled unanimously, "The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad. Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."
The case was brought as a test by the far left advocacy group the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), who admitted that the purpose of the exercise was to extend the homosexual political efforts through the courts. James Esseks, Litigation Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project of the NYCLU, was specific that the case was part of a larger political effort to abolish the traditional definition of marriage in the state.
"But there is still lots of work to be done here. It's now up to the state legislature to finish the job it started last year and pass the marriage bill so that lesbian and gay New Yorkers won't have to leave the state to celebrate their commitments," Esseks said.
The ruling may create a conflict with a previous decision from the New York Court of Appeals that ruled in 2006 that homosexual couples have no right to be issued marriage licenses by local officials, framing the issue as a matter of the state Constitution. At that time, Justice Smith wrote for the Court, "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature."
But since 1989, when the world's first legal "civil union" was contracted between two men in Copenhagen, Denmark, it has been courts, not legislatures, that have been used successfully to bring about the weakening - and ultimately in Canada, Spain and the Netherlands, the abolition - of the traditional definition of marriage and family.
In 1971, two men, Jack Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The license was denied, a decision that was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. This court battle was to set the programme for the homosexual political movement over the next thirty years. Throughout the 1990's several European countries introduced legal equivalents to natural marriage for homosexual partners, whether called "civil unions", "civil partnerships", or "domestic partnerships".
In 2000, the Netherlands passed a law that allowed such partnerships to be called "marriage". After several court cases were won by homosexual activists, an Ontario appeals court ordered the Canadian government to institute "gay marriage," which was done in June 2004.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
New York's Highest Court Rules 4-2 In Favour Of Traditional Marriage
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06070601.html
Of course, the left always uses the courts to do their bidding.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
The beatings will continue...
Next will be a moose-limb married to his goat in Iran... just you wait
So now if a Muslim man comes over, gets a job, then insists that his 4 wives as permitted by Islam (and validated as married in some 3rd world dump of a country) also be covered, that too is required?
And don’t forget - muslims are often married to more than one goat, in case one ain’t “in the mood”.
How can we project the concept of “rule of law” as an element of our foreign policy with this in your face out of control sort of behavior in courts that refuse to let us know what they’re up to and see themselves as above the ordinary man as a sort of Platonic dictator?
filthy disease ridden queers win again...
Excuse me but doesn’t this judgement violate the federal Defense of Marriage Act? Congress made it very clear that the federal government does not recognize “same sex marriage”. It also stated that no state would have to recognize under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, “same sex marriages” recorded in other states. There is no treaty that the US has signed requiring the US to recognize “same sex marriages” recorded in other countries.
filthy disease ridden queer judges @@!#!! us again...
there.. fixed it
thx...
And once you recognize overseas marriage, you must recognize polygamous unions
To me this would kill the whole gay marriage issue if it weren't a government issue at all. Leave it between the people, God and their families and frankly it could be handled better.
Every single day ordained clergy marry gay couples.
Yes. It’s wrong in God’s eyes, but that is NOT for the government to decide. Government is there to stop people from using force on each other, not to force them to do right morally. The answer is not to bring the government into what is intrisically a religious and moral issue. Rather, the answer is for these churches to exercise ecclesiastical discipline on those church leaders who perform and condone these marriages. This is where the heart of the matter is, and intervention into the issue by the government only clouds the issue. It is not what the government thinks about homosexuality that should be considered-—it is what God says about it!
The courts in England have ruled just that. A Muslim man (on welfare) in England wanted to have his four wives make a claim each. He won.
Doesn’t sound pleasant. You’d basically have one group of churches doing something that other churches find sinful. Sounds like a recipe for religious strife.
The gubmint is involved because of the legal issues involved in marriage, such as taxes, insurance, all manner of contracts, etc. etc. etc.
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.