filthy disease ridden queers strike again...
Posted on 05/09/2008 7:11:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The State of New York has been ordered to recognize homosexual "marriages" performed in U.S. states and foreign countries where the practice is legal.
New York's highest court – the Court of Appeals – refused to review a lower-court ruling that ordered recognition of so-called foreign "same-sex marriages" performed outside the State of New York. Such unions must now be honored in New York if they were created legally -- for example, in Massachusetts or Canada.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says activist judges are now forcing homosexual marriage on New York citizens. "[T]his is a very sad day for New Yorkers, and we hope this doesn't happen in [other] states across this nation," he comments.
"This is precisely what we feared with the whole onset of homosexual 'marriage' – different states being required, through activist judges ... to recognize [gay] marriages of other states [or] a foreign country."
However, LaBarbera notes the decision could be overturned by lawmakers or appealed to the federal courts. He says pro-family advocates and legislators in the Empire State should do anything they can to stop the forcing of homosexual marriage recognition through "judicial fiat."
"[Judicial activism is] just going to pave the way for even more aggressive rulings in this area," he continues. "So we hope that something can be done about this."
New York is one of only seven states that does not have a state law or constitutional amendment restricting marriage to the union of only one man and one woman. Only one state, Arizona, has tried and failed to pass a Defense of Marriage Act or amendment when the issue was voted on by the public. In more than two dozen other states, however, such initiatives have passed convincingly.
I just don't know what else to say.
If they called for a revolution, nobody would come.
Guess what' going to be shoved up AZ's a$$ in the very near future.
These activist judges need to be removed from office, either by recall (if applicable) or impeachment.
You mean it's not just legal, it's mandatory?
Ping.
Is he saying that activist judges are forcing New Yorkers to marry someone of their own sex? :)
It is funny how Democrats don’t even believe in Democracy.
“It is funny how Democrats don’t even believe in Democracy.”
Orwellian?
yes...24 years by now...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Contempt of courts is my mantra. These men who work in dresses are responsible for all this crap.
filthy disease ridden queers strike again...
Well, now, I just thot they worked for US. And if we don’t like those who ‘work for us,’ isn’t there something about we get to run them out of town?
Good grief! How much farther does it have to go?
LOL
And when a Muzzi shows up with 5 or 6 ‘legal’ wives, what happens?
Wow, who would have ever thought gubberment would mess marriage up. Gubberment has such a great track record with everything else...
Freegards
You know the Mae West line ...
“Are you trying to show contempt for this court?”
“I’m doing my best to hide it.”
That's an old refrain. We know by now that the spineless scumbag politicians simply don't have the guts.
>>>These activist judges need to be removed from office, either by recall (if applicable) or impeachment.
This was the only decision the judges could have reached under the backdrop of current law.
I discussed this last year on a thread regarding the Florida anti-gay marriage campaign
“”Ultimately a waste of time I think. Eventually the matter will be before the Supreme Court where the United States Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will trump the local restrictions.
Florida can choose to set its own restrictions on marriages performed in that jurisdiction, but legal marriages from elsewhere are legally binding on Florida and any other state. To illustrate, consider how different states set varying age requirements for marriage, but the marriage isn’t void when moving to a state that sets a higher age. And interstate travel to marry in a more accommodating state is already common.
You also had the same situation in the old days when divorce was much more limited. People got around this by going to Nevada for a quickie divorce the original restrictive state was forced to recognize.
Absent a federal constitutional amendment, which apparently isn’t going to happen, I really see no other final outcome.””
3 posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:36:21 AM by tlb
nope and i live in the wilderness so my vote doesn't count anyway...
That’s why it’s important to have more conservative justices that understand the folly of “same sex” marriages.
It would have been helpful if the author of this story had cited the case.
>>>That’s why it’s important to have more conservative justices that understand the folly of “same sex” marriages.
Immaterial if you want justices who follow the constitution instead of rewriting it. “Full Faith and Credit” is inextricable from such issues. A justice doing his duty honestly MUST honor and enforce it just as the NY judges did. The precedents go back to the first days of the republic and are too numerous to ignore.
Again the only way past the FF&C issue is the federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. And this will never get past the senate.
Like your typical muslim kneeling in public (I've seen more of those here than the other), there is an unmistakeable sense that the performance is just that: a performance, done for effect. That sort of motivation dies out when its audience yawns and loses interest.
This little faction of misfits isn't quite as ubiquitous as it wants you to believe.
Yes. In fact, the entire story has a bit of an unreal feel about it.
Possibly they could put a clause in there that would make a judge, governor or other public official who attempted to rule this way an "outlaw" subject to punishment by any citizen at any time.
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.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... my beliefs call for, honor your
FATHER and MOTHER.
Not honor Mother and Mother or a “father” pretending to be a “mother”. Too bad - violates my Christian beliefs.
It's a sad day, that people lack common sense and force perversion on everyone. It's no longer “tolerance”. It's FORCED acceptance.
The highest court in New York state had previously ruled against same sex marriage in New York. But now, in this case, they are saying that the state must recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Isn’t that contradictory?
Maybe somebody knows exactly when that happened, but New York’s highest court ruled against a lower court judge in New York City who had ruled for same sex marriage. So how the heck can the court, in effect, overrule their previous ruling?
But they're far more politically and otherwise active than the general public. That's why they get their way so often.
Judicial tyranny rears its ugly head again. Allow the people to vote and this homo cr@p never gets anywhere.
I’d just submit an amendment exempting recognition of marriages performed in other states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Federal Government has too much power as it is without usurping marriage law from the states, and I don’t fancy myself a fool, a coward, or a crypto-homo-whatever.
But even this discussion should be irrelevant, because, as another FReeper said on this thread, the couple in question was apparently married in Canada, and the Full Faith and Credit clause simply refers to the several states, IIRC.
Furthermore, things such as the Defense of Marriage Act were predicated on the idea that there was a public policy exception, or some such, carved out in law from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but that could be on legally shaky ground.
Agreed. Their unholy alliance with the media (all media)leverages their message.
But, as with subprimes, leverage works two ways with equal power.
Would “Full Faith and Credit” apply if a Muslim brough over his six wives? I doubt it. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court does NOT have to buy into a perverted agenda.
More proof a Federal Marriage Amendment is needed.
Of course McCain is essentially FOR homosexual marriage.
Time for a Federal Amendment.
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.