New York governor basically legalizes gay marriage statewide

posted at 9:15 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

Why “basically”? Because only the legislature can formally legalize it and all attempts to push a bill through have stalled so far. Which means gays can’t get married in New York … but they can, of course, now get married in California or Massachusetts and then come back to New York, where, per Paterson’s new executive order, their marriages will be recognized with full faith and credit (the same principle that lets straights run off to Vegas and then have their Nevada license recognized back home). Not the cleverest gay marriage gambit ever to be tried in NYS but still darned clever in how it (a) lets him argue semi-persuasively that he’s just following the law as it already is, (b) holds the virtue for most conservatives of at least being imposed by an elected official and not a court, and (c) nudges the legislature to make a move on passing a full-fledged gay marriage law of its own, especially since enforcement in the interim is apt to be messy:

It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.

I’m curious what the HA faithful think. Most of you are avowed federalists; here’s an example of the principle that might not cut your way. Opposition to the move is already stirring, meanwhile, which makes me wonder if the legislature won’t just duck the issue and let Paterson sink or swim on his own. Remember, too, that the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Bill Clinton, don’t forget) says states aren’t required to recognize gay marriages in other states. I wonder if some opponent won’t try to argue that because no New York state law has been passed formally granting full faith and credit to gay marriages, Paterson’s guilty of improperly/unilaterally “requiring” the state to recognize them and therefore in violation of DOMA. Seems like a stretch since DOMA’s really aimed at courts interpreting the federal constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, but any weapon to hand, I guess.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

last sentence should be:

Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obviously the norm, biolgically speaking, still stands.

AverageJoe on June 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife were trumpeted as being the ideal lesbian parents, featured on network shows and major magazines. Yet within two years they broke up and fought over the kids.
miles on June 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Hollywood types don’t offer the best examples for relationships. Successful, long-term, straight marriages are the exception rather than the norm. One look at Britney Spears would show that being straight doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be a great mom.

dedalus on June 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife

Did the kids get to watch?

bayam on June 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM

miles on June 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Let me start by saying that I am, in no way, being closed minded on this subject. I am here throwing out scenarios and asking questions because my mind is open. I’m not gay. I am a woman who happens to dig men. So, actually, this entire subject makes little to No difference in my life, personally.

Why would we need a biological bill of rights?
Let’s use your example of Melissa E. and LouDPhils as the example. How did this case play out? I imagine that the biological Father was not a part of this case at all.
Just like hetero couples that get married, woman has a biological child, the man adopts that child. Years later, they divorce and have child custody battles. The biological father, I presume, would not be involved in this.

Why would you bring the third party into it? This is about TWO people raising children.
Why is it that those children would be more ‘dysfunctional’ than hetero couples’ children going through the same dramas?

The court systems, I hope, are set up, to work in the best interest of the Children. Why would that change because the spouses are the same sex? The courts would weigh what is best, just like they do now, and in many cases Joint custody is given.
I see no difference if the couple is the same sex or if they are male and female.

My mind is open here. I’m just trying to wrap my mind around your argument. I never said I was right. I’m asking the questions.

bridgetown on June 1, 2008 at 8:11 PM

I said it is obviously, biologically speaking, not normal for same sex coupling. There is no denying that. Its obvious in the form and function of the body organs in question. The ways in which homosexuals attempt to use their bodily organs to simulate the normal natural uses also prove this . Square pegs in round holes, if you will. Sure you could probably do this with external manipulation, but succeeding to get the square peg into the round hole would not make it normal.

One could argue that man has transcended the confines of their biological limitations, and that their mind has allowed them to adapt to evolving types of relationships (Homo v Hetero sexuality). That would take the conversation outside of biology and into psycology.
Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obviously the norm, biolgically speaking, still stands.
AverageJoe on June 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM

It is only “obviously” not normal if they are together solely to make babies.
Otherwise, human beings can have intimate relationships regardless of said parts being there. If my husband were in a car accident and was suddenly put into a wheelchair and lost his ‘part’, would it be abnormal for me to stay in an intimate relationship with him because he is no longer your definition of a man?

I hear that you say hetero relations are the norm. Of course they are. That is why gay people are very much in the minority. So are people with autism. Are you suggesting that nobody should couple with someone with autism?
and NO, I am NOT equating homosexuality with autism. I am simply trying to make a point, so for the more sensitive readers, please do not fly off the handle on that one. I’m not taking hours to give answers here, I’m typing off the top of my head, so stay focused. LoL
:)

bridgetown on June 1, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7