Skip to comments.New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere
Posted on 05/28/2008 8:29:58 PM PDT by Embargo
ALBANY Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
In a directive issued on May 14, the governors legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as a strong step toward marriage equality. And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This country is going to Hell.
This state is already there and the majority of people here in the People’s Republic of New York are happy with this putz.
I wonder if I could seek political asylum at the Vatican?
It seemed like a lot of dirt came out on him at first. Nobody seemed to care though.
The California ruling must be reversed, plain and simple. If it’s not, we’ll have some serious problems that will have to be settled in federal court.
As horrific as it seems, a revolution will be the only resolution to this conflict.
Hence the neverending attempts to relieve us of our firearms.
Someone in the IRS needs to keep an eagle eye out for Federal tax returns coming in from these “married couples”. A lot of these idiots will try that. That’s when the cases can be brought before the US Supreme Court, and the whole issue can be put to rest, or the need for a Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution can be demonstrated once and for all.
Huh. That’s great. The New York citizens can cough up, as it were, the court costs of homosexual divorces. Cool. I guess state’s rights are a good thing.
So an out of state queer marriage license is recognized, but an out of state concealed carry license isn’t. That’s cool. New York won’t see any of my travel money.
I guess sewage flows towards the coasts.
I was just thinking the other day that we finally needed an amendment to the Constitution limiting our rights. How beautiful. Boy, aren't the conservatives leading the way toward more liberty! Just absolutely beautiful! No wonder we are leading the election right now!
Federal Constitutional Amendment?
Yep, if the courts don’t keep in line, we may just have to pass an amendment forcing the courts to get with the program. Shame, but it’s their own doing.
Good point. I didn't even catch the connection immediately.
as a former nys resident
i give you the 3 finger salute
yours is in the middle
As a former NYer, I don’t get the part about transferring fishing licenses between spouses?
PROTECT THE CHILDREN
as I recall Fred Thompson in his now famously bungled run for the white house said we didn’t need a constitutional amendment on this and freepers applauded (some)
These liberals had it locked up. They could have waited a year to pull this crap. Now it will be there undoing. They will help turn out the conservative vote.
this country is already lost.
Dont know but I assume you could refuse to pay your taxes and get sanctuary at one of the churches that harbors illegals.
Marriage is not a Civil Right. It is what it has always been, a Social Institution. It is therefore the province of the Society, not of a judicial oligarchy. When one branch of government seizes from the people their right to determine the very institutions that define their character, that branch has abrogated the consensual agreement with the people from which its power is derived.
Values and social norms DO change over time. They change slowly, as new paradigms either earn, or fail to earn, credibility and acceptance in the population at large. What is happening now is that a judiciary that is accountable to no one but the special interests that have bought and own it has seen fit to dictate to the rest of us new law which would never be passed by a legislature accountable to the people. The fact of a judiciary promulgating law is profoundly repugnant to the Separation of Powers on which the most successful and enduring model of self-government is based. That this judiciary promulgates law by virtue, not of changing the words of the law, but by changing what those words mean does not make such a usurpation of authority more acceptable for its facile and smug artifice.
And before you start with me, I’m not homophobic. I’m homo-fed-up. I used to have a lot more tolerance for the gay world than the average bear; the militant narcissism of the last decade has washed every shred of goodwill down the drain with me. You can’t demand my approval at the point of a gavel, and for trying, you have forfeited the ability to earn it in the future.
My final shot: I am sick of the ridiculous PR-firm-generated artifice that all we are supposed to be about is pushing for more liberties of any kind and every kind, whatever and whenever. Societies are defined by the structures and boundaries that they establish for themselves. The founders of the ACLU were correct nearly a century ago when they observed that the most effective path to Communism in the U.S. required severing the people from their cultural roots, and from any sense of connection with the past through their social institutions.
The gay world has made a lifetime enemy of me.
No way! All we need is a little civil unrest to make their plans a nightmare.
Don't forget--- they are the appeasers. White flaggers. A little resistance--- and the sissies will be screaming "Quagmire!"
I agree. A Democratic friend insists that these gay marriage brouhahas that erupt like clockwork every presidential election year are the result of a Republican plot. I don’t agree, mainly because I can’t imagine the Republican party doing anything that clever, but she might as well be right.
Amazing that six pro-homo judges in Californicate can affect the entire country like this.
Hey Humble Servant, haven’t you heard that “average bears” are hot in the gay community...happy hunting!!!
Despite having a state driver to chauffeur him the 20 minutes home, Paterson, as lieutenant governor, sometimes chose to stay downtown because of a busy schedule, spokesman Errol Cockfield said.
"While he was lieutenant governor, Gov. Paterson had a grueling schedule that required him to be near the Capitol for sensitive negotiations, meetings with legislative leaders, and government-related conferences," he added.
"In some cases, he needed to be closer to the Capitol than his Guilderland home and he stayed within a stone's throw of the Capitol so that he could quickly respond to the urgent needs of the state."
One state-government source laughed at the explanation, noting that lieutenant governors, Paterson included, typically are not involved much in day-to-day matters and that Paterson admitted that, as lieutenant governor, he had no role in budget negotiations.
(Source: NY Post March 24, 2008 "Paterson's Inn Trouble")
So if it wasn't budget-related (and with a $5 billion deficit he's lucky it wasn't) just what was this urgent and sensitive work that Paterson was carrying on that he had to stay downtown? We all know the answer, but apparently, few people care to call him on it.
He is a puppet. Silver and Bruno are running the show and they despise each other. At least we are rid of Punk Boss Eliot FOREVER!
Same sex "unions" are already legal..no one gets put in jail for it. If they want legal monetary bennies they can call it something other than marriage. This is nothing more than a commie attempt to eliminate our values, namely the religious ones. They must get rid of our religions and guns to get complete control. Never...never let it happen.
An amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples no more limits your rights than the constitutional requirements that you be 35 to be President.
Of course, there are many many cases where the government rightly distinguishes between actions that promote the public welfare, and those that do not. Normally, we don’t need constitutional amendments to define these, because the Constitition already allows the congress to make laws.
It’s just the political nature of the courts that have caused us to have to look to change the constitution.
Laws should be applied fairly, and equally to all. For example, either every individual should have a right to perform anal sex, or none should. Same with oral sex, or sex with animals. Equal rights under the law.
So if any state passed a law that forbid a “gay” man to marry, I would be right next to the gays fighting for their right to do the same thing I did — marry a woman.
Because history has shown that gay people can marry women and have children and raise families, just like hetorsexual people can.
BTW, at some point, after a few states have legalized “gay marriage”, they will no doubt start discriminating against some guys who want to get married, but whom the state will decide aren’t really “gay”, but are just trying to get special state benefits.
THAT’S where the discrimination will be, when we force people to prove they are gay to qualify for same-sex marriage.
When did the New York governor get king-like powers to change the laws of the state without a vote?
I can’t imagine the current laws say that marriage benefits can be assigned to same-sex couples.
Although I guess the laws probably don’t say — but then I would have expected a lawsuit to have alreaedy required New York to recognize the marriages from Mass.
Why MUST they call it marriage pray tell? That is what this is all about in a nutshell...not that they want "rights". You are falling for the whole fish, hook, line and sinker.
Actually, it is about more than just the name “marriage”, at least for a lot of us.
In MY opinion, those who push to protect the “name” Marriage are the ones that have fallen for the trap. I don’t want to protect the name “marriage”, I want to protect myself and other taxpayers from having to provide special benefits and incentives for individuals to enter into contractual societal arrangements that I believe to be contrary to nature, and that do not further legitimate government or societal interests.
That means I oppose civil unions that convey the benefits of marriage as well. And in Virginia, our Marriage Amendment specifically included a prohibition against ANY attempt to provide marriage benefits by another name.
People do have individual rights. And there is a compelling argument to make for ensuring that each person’s rights are protected, regardless of their religion, their gender, their race, or their philosophy.
But the availability of government benefits for certain favored acts is not a “right”. If the government defines such benefits, it is the right of each person who meets the qualifications to get those benefits, regardless of who or what they are.
Therefore, a gay man should be allowed to marry a woman.
Note that it wasn’t that long ago that there were laws against a black man marrying a white woman. The Gay lobby tries to equate that with the prohibition against a man marrying a man.
The will of the people are being trampled on and this is getting ridiculous.
Where are we going and why are we in this hand basket?
Sorry. I searched the article before posting and it did not come up. Perhaps it was a technical glitch.
Why can’t they just have a system that allows for joint tax forms for those not hetro. That would fix alot of this nonsense.
I’d prefer a constitutional amendment cementing the language of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Marriage Protection Act has the right idea, but is not strong enough.
I do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment - the fedgov already regulates too much of what should be state jurisdiction. But if forced to choose between the fedgov subverting DOMA and forcing interstate recognition of gay marriages, and the fedgov introducing a regulation barring gay marriage nationally, I’d choose the latter.
“Full Faith and Credit” clause alert. This genie will never get stuffed back in the bottle. Game set and match. Who were all those conservatives who said it would never come to this and that Constitutional protection of the sanctity of marriage was unnecessary?
God doesn’t have to lift a finger to punish this country, when we’re doing such a good job of it ourselves. As a society, we’ve managed to paper over our collective misery with trinkets, baubles, and granite countertops. Inevitably, these perishables do just that - they perish. And suddenly we’re left to gaze upon whatever it is we’ve become. And that will be a very very painful reckoning for us as a nation.
You nailed it. Other states will surely follow, and as it becomes drilled into the heads of the electorate that this is some kind of natural progression of rights, a constitutional amendment becomes politically untenable.