Homosexual marriages are a bad idea for many reasons. So far only states where liberals judges forced gay marriage allow them.
Where the people can decide the issue for themselves, they have rejected this legal absurdity.
In general the anti-faith left cannot win its agenda at the ballot box, but has used activist judges to force its will upon society. Good news: We can reverse their mistakes.
Quote:
July 6, 2006
News Release
New York's Highest Court Rules 4-2
In Favor Of Traditional Marriage
Albany, NY - Today New York's highest court ruled 4-2 to uphold New York's Constitution barring same-sex marriage. New York's court of appeals reviewed four appeals filed by homosexual couples and ruled that the parties have no right to be issued marriage licenses by local officials. This leaves Massachusetts as the only state legally allowing same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage bans are currently pending in New Jersey, California and Washington. Liberty Counsel has been active in every one of the New York cases since they were filed, and filed legal briefs defending traditional marriage before the court of appeals.
Justice Robert S. Smith stated 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." The Court held that the state of New York had at least two rational reasons for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. "First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. ... The Legislature could [also] rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like." The Court also stated, "The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: "We are pleased that this latest attempt by the homosexual agenda to radically redefine our culture has been stopped dead in its tracks. The court of appeals agreed with millennia of human history regarding traditional marriage. Marriage is distinct from other personal relationships. The marital union of a man and a woman uniquely contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, to society, to children and to the state. To recognize marriage between people of the same sex would result in the abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant, and the abolition of gender would have devastating effects on children. Children do best when raised with a mom and a dad. We must not rest until we have once and for all defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the United States Constitution."
Next week on July 10, 2006, Mr. Staver will be presenting oral arguments before the California Court of Appeals in defense of California's marriage laws.
News release emailed to me from lc.org
__________________
FREE LEGAL REPRESENTATION to victims of anti-faith bias including employees, students, teachers, churches, and cities: Alliance Defense Fund, Christian Law Association, American Center for Law and Justice, The Thomas More, The Becket Fund, The Rutherford Institute, Pacific Justice, Christian Legal Society, Liberty Counsel, Home School Legal and Defense Association.
Lion, can you explain why gay marriage is a "bad idea" ?
Do you also disagree with the courts forcing anti-segregation laws on those that were for segregation?
If the majority supported banning christians from marrying would you support it?
Will you directly answer any of these questions or will they go the way of Ben Stein?
[COLOR=Blue]Homosexual marriages are a bad idea for many reasons.
Can you list a few of these reasons?
Quote:
So far only states where liberals judges forced gay marriage allow them.
It is unconstitutional not to allow them. The judges are enforcing the Constitution.
Quote:
Where the people can decide the issue for themselves, they have rejected this legal absurdity.
Many laws are passed by vote that later get struck down by a court because they are unConstitutional.
Quote:
In general the anti-faith left cannot win its agenda at the ballot box, but has used activist judges to force its will upon society.
The right-wing is trying to use votes and Constitutional amendments to force their morality on all of us. Banning gay marriage is not only wrong, it violates our civil rights.
Staver gives some reasons in his press release, which presumably LionsDen shares. Also, there is this, pursuant to Staver's appearance before a CA appellate court next Monday:
The two traditional-values lawsuits, which will be argued in the afternoon part of the court session, go a step farther than the attorney general's position in defending the state laws. They contend that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because it "is socially and culturally a child-rearing institution.''
Mathew Staver, a Florida lawyer who will argue on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, said this week that what is at stake is "the best interests of children and the stability of the family.''
"If you look at human relationships, obviously men and woman procreate. That's how children are born,'' Staver said.
The attorney wrote in a brief submitted to the court that "marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for approbation and support, but about the well-being of children and society.''
By contrast, the state attorney general's office takes a middle ground, contending that the traditional definition of marriage can be justified in part because California is committed to providing equal rights and benefits through its domestic partner laws. * * *
The lawsuits by the traditional values groups, which were originally filed to halt the San Francisco marriages, were allowed to continue in Superior Court for the purpose of seeking validation of the state laws.
That's what Staver is arguing in CA next week. While what Staver says in his press release is technically true, he is only being allowed to address the appeals court on a very narrow issue related to one of two ancillary suits.
It's become typical of Staver to overstate his role in litigation, beginning with his very limited participation in one of the notorious Florida vote counting cases in November, 2000, which he exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion at the time.
Homosexual marriages are a bad idea for many reasons.
Name one.
Since "same sex marriages" are illegal in most states, "homosexual marriages" generally involve marriage between two people who do not want to have sex with each other.
I'm sure LionsDen thinks they are a "bad idea" because sex is a wonderful gift from God, and we should all indulge ourselves in it as much as possible!
"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."
The italicized section seems to me to hardly constitute a ban. I read it as saying that there is no (NY) Constitutional basis for such marriages (see quote below). Further, this ruling would appear to rather shift the issue to the legislature. I see nothing saying that the legislature couldn't attempt to pass a bill legalizing such marital arrangements.
LionsDen seems to ignore the above.
Right. Because M/F unions are never dissolved.
"Homosexual agenda"? Yeah, I think we all know that's a crock. Homosexuals are not trying to "radically redefine our culture," they just want the same rights as the rest of us. I mean, this country was born out of the ideal that, "all men are created equal."
"... devastating effects on children"? I think again we're going to have to ask for some evidence here. Real evidence. Not just conjecture and bold opinions.
"We must not rest ..." blah blah blah. Of course, because there's obviously no other pressing issues facing our society today (education, obesity, the economy, etc.).
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?
It seems to me that the fundamental constitutional question here is whether or not the right to marry is, in any sense, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or by particular state constitutions. If there is no such constitutional right, how can it be infringed upon?
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
It seems to me that the fundamental constitutional question here is whether or not the right to marry is, in any sense, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or by particular state constitutions. If there is no such constitutional right, how can it be infringed upon?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. The right to shop isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, either, but public shops are not allowed to discriminate based on race. If (and I don't know if this is the case) something in the Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating based on gender, then it's reasonable to suggest that it might prohibit the state from allowing some people to marry, but prohibiting others to marry based on gender.
It seems to me that the fundamental constitutional question here is whether or not the right to marry is, in any sense, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or by particular state constitutions. If there is no such constitutional right, how can it be infringed upon?
The right to privacy is being infringed upon as is the right to equal treatment under the law. It's not marriage itself that is a right.
Many things are not Constitutional rights, but discriminating against a group of people would still be a civil rights violation...for example the right to own a home is not guaranteed by the Constitution, but laws against women buying homes would be an infringement of rights, wouldn't you agree?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. The right to shop isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, either, but public shops are not allowed to discriminate based on race. If (and I don't know if this is the case) something in the Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating based on gender, then it's reasonable to suggest that it might prohibit the state from allowing some people to marry, but prohibiting others to marry based on gender.
I'm not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, neither the Constitution nor its Amendments contain anything like a general non-discrimination clause. The 15th, 19th and and the 26th Amendments address specific issues of non-discrimination in regard to voting rights. Issues relating to discrimination in regard to things like housing, education, etc. have been dealt with either by legislative action or executive orders. I believe that the most common argument against discrimination, on the basis of sexual preference, is based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. How broadly those provisions may be applied is still, I believe, a matter of continuing litigation.
As I read it, the case in the OP has to do with the court's interpretation of the New York State Constitution. I would expect to see this appealed in Federal court on the grounds that New York's ban violates that same equal protections clause in the 14th Amendment.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
The right to privacy is being infringed upon as is the right to equal treatment under the law. It's not marriage itself that is a right.
Many things are not Constitutional rights, but discriminating against a group of people would still be a civil rights violation...for example the right to own a home is not guaranteed by the Constitution, but laws against women buying homes would be an infringement of rights, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure how the right to privacy would be implicated here. A legal marriage is a public act, publicly witnessed and recorded. I don't see how that allows for any reasonable expectation of privacy. I agree that the equal protection clause may have bearing on the issue and I believe that it is on those grounds that the issue will ultimately be adjudicated, one way or the other.
On the question of housing discrimination, certainly it is illegal, not because it is unconstitutional, but because it violates specific civil rights legislation dealing with discrimination in housing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no comparable federal legislation prohibiting discrimination in regard to marriage. It is precisely that kind of legislation that one side of this issue is trying to promote and that the other side is trying to prevent.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
I would expect to see this appealed in Federal court on the grounds that New York's ban violates that same equal protections clause in the 14th Amendment.
There were no federal questions raised here, so there can't be a federal appeal. It had to do purely with NY statutes and the NY state constitution. This is the end of the line for this case.
The italicized section seems to me to hardly constitute a ban.
Absolutely, Shake, and the reason the language at issue doesn't seem like a ban is that it isn't a ban. The title of this thread is a huge, honking fraud. The "ban" happened a bazillion years ago when New York enacted its first het-only ceremonial marriage statute.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
I would expect to see this appealed in Federal court on the grounds that New York's ban violates that same equal protections clause in the 14th Amendment.
There were no federal questions raised here, so there can't be a federal appeal. It had to do purely with NY statutes and the NY state constitution. This is the end of the line for this case.
Do you mean that they can't appeal in federal court on the grounds that the state constitution violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th amendment?
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
They can't appeal this decision to a federal court because there were no federal issues raised. The question here was only whether the NY statutes were in violation of the NY constitution's due process and equal protection requirements.
Sometimes suits allege violation of both state and federal constitutions; for example, many state constitutions have religion clauses, and state statutes are challenged as violating those and the 1st Amendment, as it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
So occasionally you'll see cases jumping from state to federal court for those - and other - reasons. But not this one.
They can initiate a new case, if they can meet federal standing requirements, challenging the state law in light of federal due process and equal protection. But I suspect that is a far more onerous hurdle, given not only the reasoning of today's decision, in that the state need only show a "rational basis" for its marriage laws, and the fact that federal courts will accord a high degree of deference to the states on the question of marriage, which really isn't a federal issue at all.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
NY Bans Homosexual Marriage 7/6/06
Re: NY Bans Homosexual Marriage 7/6/06
Linear Mode
