New York governor basically legalizes gay marriage statewide
posted at 9:15 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 2 3 ... 7 Next »
I guess there really are two Americas but it isnt economic but social
William Amos on May 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Some HA “faithful” and other conservatives are for federalism, until they are against it. See Schiavo.
Entelechy on May 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM
This is where it begins. One state decides to honor gay marriage from another state, courts get involved and say “Hey shouldn’t all states up hold the same standard?” Bam!! Gay marriage nationwide. As long as you get married in CA.
knat on May 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM
King of New York
EJDolbow on May 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Too big of a stretch, Allah.
I doubt anyone will attempt to claim that the gov has violated Clinton’s Defense Marriage Act. I think his executive order will universally be seen as the state willingly accepting gay marriages – not gay marriages being imposed on the state.
Anyone else?
blink on May 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
It’s still a pussy move. What happens if CA passes a constitutional amendment. What will our brave Gov. do then? Some leader.
JiangxiDad on May 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Politically its a gold mine because it makes it an issue in the election in november. Obama has to put up or shut up
He will most likely shut up
William Amos on May 29, 2008 at 9:24 PM
We’ve hashed all this out before, seems like there is a thread like this once a week, and I don’t think any argument is going to change any minds. I do however think there will be 1551 posts in this thread.
DFCtomm on May 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Give it time. The split will be in all areas.
JiangxiDad on May 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM
CA will have it on the ballot this Nov. for sure and, if the last time is an indication, will drive millions out to vote. This could have major implications to the presidential item too, in CA and beyond.
Entelechy on May 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Schwarzenegger wants it both ways, to be for and against it.
Entelechy on May 29, 2008 at 9:26 PM
What really gets on my nerves about all of this is that every time a gay marriage bill has come up for a vote of the people, the people reject gay marriage every time. But does the California courts care about that? Nope. Does Governor Paterson care about that? Nope.
SoulGlo on May 29, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Do we fags get deals at Days Inn’s in NY state like your governor? I would surely come visit if so!
SouthernGent on May 29, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Obama, contrary to what his supporters may think, believes marriage is only between a man and woman. He supports civil unions.
He’s actually a federalist on the issue.
amerpundit on May 29, 2008 at 9:29 PM
I would think Governor Paterson’s executive order would fail in a court of law. I would think the legislature would have to bring such a far reaching law into existence. I think this will get challenged and will probably fail.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM
This is why liberals run for office and become lawyers and judges. They want to impose the right way to do things on us poor, ignorant, backward slobs.
Buford Gooch on May 29, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Can’t he see the harm he has done.
Wade on May 29, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Oligarcy in California, Monachy in New York.
29Victor on May 29, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Sure, liberals want you to marry a gay man. What a moron.
freevillage on May 29, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Just put it on the ballot. “Do you support recognizing same sex marriages from other states in the State of New York?”. Go ahead and put “Do you support allowing same sex marriages to occur in the State of New York?” on there too. Just do this in every state and settle the issue once and for all. This is a stupid thing to discuss. Neither side will budge and now we’ve got theocrats like Huckabee trying to make this a federal issue and arch liberals like Patterson trying to side step any hearing from the people (thru either the legislature or ballot question) by just declaring whatever idea he has to automatically be law. Let the people of each state decide and leave it alone from there. We’ve got more important things to take care of.
Totally off-topic, but I’m in PA and I just saw my very first McCain general election ad to air on TV. Scranton/WB TV market. About time he started up here. Now that it’s 99% done for Obama, a lot of Hillary people in PA and OH are gonna start shopping.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Federalist or no, marriage shouldn’t be the domain of the state. Either at national or state level. Unless I missed the part in the Constitution where it says ‘and this document validates all pre-existing marital compacts made under British law’.
Oh, it doesn’t? You mean they didn’t assume they had the power to govern that which belongs in the domain of natural law? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
Spirit of 1776 on May 29, 2008 at 9:37 PM
You seem to misunderstand (on purpose?) I’m talking about imperial edict in and of itself, not the particulars of this one.
Buford Gooch on May 29, 2008 at 9:37 PM
I question the timing.
wccawa on May 29, 2008 at 9:37 PM
It seems the governor is recognizing, not imposing, gay marriage.
dedalus on May 29, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Yes, sure diminishes “We The People”
Wade on May 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Oh, you just said something that was irrelevant to the topic at hand. I’m sorry, I didn’t know that was your feature.
freevillage on May 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Lost cause. I don’t like it but don’t see any way of stopping it now. Better to gear up for the polygamy fight cause it is going to be next. (please no man-cat-dog remarks)
Limerick on May 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Obama supporters don’t think, they follow.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Let the libs have New York and California. They can tax themselves silly and turn themselves into multicultural, bilingual, immigrant, and gay friendly third world pseudo-nations. Most who still work for a living are getting the hell out of those states anyway.
Nozzle on May 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Oh, poo. Bad cases make bad law. That case was outrageous. You do not give someone who stands to gain financially from a person’s death the power over that person’s life and death. And the parents were perfectly willing to take care of her.
Talk about a cult of death.
Not that I was in favor of federal intervention, being the federalist that I am.
misterpeasea on May 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM
So, the governor of New York issuing an executive order (imperial edict) wasn’t the topic? You seem to be pretty good at this willful ignorance thing.
Buford Gooch on May 29, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Yup. Marriage is a religious institution. The state should be able to recognize unions between two people for taxation and contractual/insurance/legal (wills, etc.) purposes, but the gov’t has no business making marriage laws. Your definition of marriage (or lack thereof) should be formed by your beliefs.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Ditto.
bigbeas on May 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Meow, meow, meow.
Cats rule, dogs droll, and man and woman make nice servants.
FeralCat on May 29, 2008 at 9:45 PM
And the state should be able to define what a “union” is?
misterpeasea on May 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Maybe he thought it said “Grey Carriages“.
(For Central Park.)
He is near-sighted.
profitsbeard on May 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM
How about Man-cow?
Corsair on May 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM
This turd-master is a perfect example of why the selection of second in command is so important. Selecting a token anything is a disaster looking to happen.
Wade on May 29, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Wrong.
Liberals…gays
want to redefine the meaning of the word ‘marriage’.
rockhauler on May 29, 2008 at 9:49 PM
(please no man-cat-dog remarks)
Limerick on May 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM
what about man bear pig???? oh wait, this isnt an Al Gore thread…. my bad
mrfixit on May 29, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Man-Manbearpig.
misterpeasea on May 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM
More great news for HA pundits.
WoosterOh on May 29, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Any two people. Obviously a union would have to be exclusive (you can only be “unionized” with one person) to insure protection from fraud. This way the “sanctity of marriage” is insured (as people/the Church will define what a marriage is) and everyone’s rights are equal. Remember, government is a secular entity. They shouldn’t be messing with religious institutions.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 9:54 PM
http://brettsconstitution.blogspot.com/2008/05/ellen-on-gay-marriage.html
radjah shelduck on May 29, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Voters approved it as our right by law, activists and the judiciary overturned the will of the people.
Kinda reminds me of Proposition 187
You know……. some of us, especially in CA are getting more than a little pissed off…….
Seven Percent Solution on May 29, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Once the people have their say, it should be the end of it. And that goes both for states that approve a ban/not recognizing it and states that allow for it to occur/be recognized.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I wish I gave a rat’s ass.
Purple Fury on May 29, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I’m a big fan of federalism, and I think it’s now up to the citizens of NY to decide if they think this governor is worthy of re-election. They can also decide if they like activist judges and justices and vote accordingly in the presidential elections.
If the majority of citizens of NYS are OK with this, it’s OK by me.
funky chicken on May 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM
separation of
Church AND State
Religion ——- Secular
Marriage ——- Civil Union
scruplesrx on May 29, 2008 at 10:12 PM
It’s great. The sooner gay marriage is legalized and gays feel comfortable being conservative the better. It does no one any good to purge gays from any part of the political spectrum.
It’s also necessary here in front of the “social cons” to point out that gay marriage is a way of convincing more people into thinking marriage is valuable. It’s not an attack on marriage. Gay marriage is a defence of marriage.
thuja on May 29, 2008 at 10:14 PM
In practice, your definition of marriage is going to be based on the wedding invitations you receive. And if you have man gay friends, your personal beliefs don’t matter.
thuja on May 29, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Yup. Marriage is a religious institution. The state should be able to recognize unions between two people for taxation and contractual/insurance/legal (wills, etc.) purposes, but the gov’t has no business making marriage laws. Your definition of marriage (or lack thereof) should be formed by your beliefs.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM
In practice, your definition of marriage is going to be based on the wedding invitations you receive. And if you have many gay friends, your personal beliefs don’t matter.
Spelling errors!!!
thuja on May 29, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.
malan89 on May 29, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Except that the state is then forced to, say, allow adoption by homosexuals. No one is saying gays can’t live together or do their thing. But I for one object to them gaining the “special status” marriage affords–which is primarily parental rights IMHO.
TexasDan on May 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Yep,nuance indeed, cause this guy knows all about the sanctity of marriage.
Brad on May 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM
I have bigger things to worry about than two queers getting married. I don’t see why the state should be involved in marriage whatsoever. You shouldn’t need permission from the government to get married.
libertytexan on May 29, 2008 at 10:47 PM
What I’m getting out is that if gay people call their weddings “weddings” and their marriages “marriages”, it’s a losing battle to call such arrangements by other words–regardless of what hidden reservations you may have. Once same sex love isn’t completely suppressed, there is no way polite society will accept anything less than gay marriage.
I predict it’s only a decade until the fundamentalist Southern Baptist church beside my childhood home has the gay marriages that the mothers of gay children desire in the church. Mothers win these political games.
thuja on May 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Hey – Where are we going?
And why are we in this hand basket?
Dorvillian on May 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM
The legislature did not speak; so this is not really Federalism to the degree that the people of NY had any voice. I really do not like the idea of giving tax breaks meant to foster the raising of children in a 2-parent family to people who co-habitate to save on rent. However, a quick trip to nearby Canada (where same sex marriage is also legal and much closer than Ca.) will save loads of money if one cohabitant works and the other doesn’t.
KW64 on May 29, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Better to gear up for the polygamy fight cause it is going to be next.
Limerick
Anyone rich and retarded enough can have as many wives/husbands as they want. One wife is plenty for me.
Krydor on May 29, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Marriage/Union/Whatever without the state, sure. Call it whatever you want, then go home and you and your wife, Jim, can do what married people do.
Its the state’s business because the state doles our certain rights to “married” couples that the typical person does not get. Adoption, tax breaks, “Family”/Spouse benefits.
I don’t have a problem with any of that with the exception of adoption.
All that being said.. where do you draw the line? What if I wanted to marry multiple wifes? an animal? An inanimate object? An idea? An organization? When you make the argument that the state has no business telling me what goes on in my bedroom, where do you draw the line? “The state has no business telling me __________” argument has no end until you reach total anarchy.
Brad on May 29, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Can’t he see what he’s doing?
I guess not.
mattshu on May 29, 2008 at 10:59 PM
It was only a matter of time.
Brad on May 29, 2008 at 11:01 PM
An animal or idea can’t be party to a contract. That should put some parameters on the anarchy you are concerned about.
dedalus on May 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM
once we started recognizing marriages based on love, and not as a reproductive and economic unit, anything goes.
why cant polygamists marry after gays can?
gays love each other, and so do polygamists, why cant they?
then why cant three men marry each other, they all love each other.
once we get away from the ideas of reproduction and special continuity, anything goes, because whos to dictate who does or does not love?
blatantblue on May 29, 2008 at 11:15 PM
So just to be sure. You’re cool if I were to marry planned parenthood? I’m sure they would be thrilled to hear about their newfound ability to get a 2nd chance with the children they missed the first time around.
Brad on May 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Up-stater here………
I didn’t vote for him or his predecessor.
Still, I am not surprised.
The Dems want the support of EVERY SINGLE minority group they can muster.
That’s the way they roll.
Talon on May 29, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Reproductive ability isn’t currently a test for marriage. Gays can certainly use marriage and commitment to meet the criteria of “economic unit”.
dedalus on May 29, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Has this guy ever seen any of these freak homosexuals wearing pink shorts and blowing…….a whistle?
DfDeportation on May 29, 2008 at 11:31 PM
If you wanted to structure a contractual commitment to your job or your church that would seem theoretically possible. However, a corporation isn’t entitled to “equal protection” and couldn’t assert a claim that it has a “right” to marry in the same way two individuals would.
dedalus on May 29, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Explain to me where we stop after gay marriage?
You are willing to alter traditional marriage structures to accommodate gays, it seems. After gays, why should we turn down anyone who wants a different type of marriage?
So we bend the traditional rules and structures for gays, but for no one after that?
blatantblue on May 29, 2008 at 11:39 PM
test
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Personally the idea of two gays being “married” isn’t repulsive or anything, but where do we stop?
Once we let the flood gate go, how we stop the marital chaos? You people know liberals, so don’t use the “it won’t happen” argument if I say three men will try to marry, or two men and a woman, etc, etc. Decades ago, I’m sure people didn’t think we’d be this close to letting gays marry. Who’s to say at this rate we won’t be letting all different types of arrangements in twenty years?
blatantblue on May 29, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Here’s the thing. I think ALL MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ABANDONED. MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED. The children that survive abortion should be deemed wards of the state to be raised in a hyperbaric chamber of multiculturalism with the emphasis on being an earthling (no better than any of the other animals including the ant). Nobody should have any parents as it would be discriminatory.
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM
My understanding is that you can only get married in Massachusetts if you actually live there. Don’t know what the Cali laws will be.
Tanya on May 29, 2008 at 11:46 PM
And some flaming er liberals are for ’separation of church and state’. . . except when they are against it.
As far as I’m concerned I’ve already given up on the government having any interest in representing what matters to me. I’m waiting for the black community to beg the majority Hispanic community for Affirmative Action in their communities. . . and I’m waiting for the gay community to beg for ‘equal rights’ from the growing Muslim population with their sharia no-go Jim Crow areas.
Homosexuality isn’t a class of people, it is something people do.
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Federalism is an interesting concept. Gambling is legal in Nevada. However, casinos with licenses in Las Vegas aren’t automatically allowed to build casinos in other states.
Another example is marijuana. If someone has a prescription for marijuana in California, why should NY be allowed to arrest them for doing something that is legal?
I don’t care that homosexuals do what they do. It’s a free country and people do much more egregious things that are offensive all the time. The problem is where this is leading. This ‘class’ of people is going to push for ‘hate speech’ crimes basically eliminating any 1st amendment free speech right that might make them ‘feel bad’. Recognizing groups of people for special consideration because of what they do is not what government is for, and it sets bad precedent for bigger government with more control over every aspect of our lives.
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Where do we stop after allowing gays to marry?
blatantblue on May 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM
I don’t care that homosexuals do what they do. It’s a free country and people do much more egregious things that are offensive all the time. The problem is where this is leading. This ‘class’ of people is going to push for ‘hate speech’ crimes basically eliminating any 1st amendment free speech right that might make them ‘feel bad’. Recognizing groups of people for special consideration because of what they do is not what government is for, and it sets bad precedent for bigger government with more control over every aspect of our lives.
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM
strange filters you guys have here.
ThackerAgency on May 29, 2008 at 11:54 PM
So how did this super-patriot, former fighter pilot and retired Air Force general get involved in gay rights?
“The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?” Goldwater says. “Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn’t they serve? They’re American citizens. As long as they’re not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. … So I came out for it.”
He says he’s mystified by the origins of homosexuality. “You try to find out where it started, even going back to old Egyptology – and you knew damn well the Egyptians had to have those people – but you can’t find any writings,” he says. “I have one grandson who’s gay. And my brother {Bob Goldwater} has a granddaughter who is gay. We’re sort of at a loss to know what the hell it’s all about.”
Goldwater says that having openly gay relatives doesn’t influence his beliefs, which are animated by libertarian principles that government should stay out of people’s private lives.
“He’s pretty secure in feeling that discriminating against gays is constitutionally wrong,” says Goldwater’s gay grandson, Ty Ross, a Scottsdale, Ariz., artisan who says he is close to his grandfather (whom he calls “Paka”) and has even brought boyfriends to meet him. Ross, who is HIV-positive but healthy, adds, “We haven’t really talked about it. He’s so funny. He says, ‘You people need to stand up for your rights’ – one of those ‘you people’ kind of things.”
Phoenix real estate entrepreneur and gay rights activist Charlie Harrison, who has been friendly with Goldwater since the senator began patronizing a restaurant Harrison owned 12 years ago, recalls a recent fund-raising dinner for Arizona gay men and lesbians at which Goldwater received one standing ovation after another. “He was treated like God,” Harrison marvels. “Like the Grand Canyon come to Phoenix.”
“Well, Charlie, I’m an honorary gay by now,” Harrison says Goldwater told him.
- Lloyd Grove
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 11:54 PM
So women who have gone through menopause shouldn’t be able to get married? Cancer survivors? Anybody else who can’t conceive?
e-pirate on May 30, 2008 at 12:05 AM
E-pirate, let me ask you a question I’ve been repeatedly asking:
Where do we stop after we allow gays to marry?
blatantblue on May 30, 2008 at 12:09 AM
e-pirate, EVERYBODY can get married. Don’t you get it? If you think for one minute that your concerns that a man can’t marry an animal for ANY reason, or that an American citizen can’t marry any number of foreign aliens for ANY reason (including American citizenship), then you are a racist bigot – the most horrible thing you could possibly be.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 12:10 AM
husband, wife, and 12 kids can all get married to each other at the same time. . . one big happy orgy – how dare you question their love for each other? Are you a bigot?
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM
You stop when Islam takes over the world and makes you stop. Then oh will you infidels ever stop. Allah be praised.
Aleph on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Since we’re saying to ourselves, “gays love each other, so who are we to stop them from marrying,” why does that not apply to two men and a woman, or two women and a man, or three men, or three women, or one man and five women?
They’re in love after all, so why say no? Gays don’t reproduce like men and women do. They don’t offer continuity to our species. Part of our institution of marriage is child bearing.
Heterosexual marriage serves an integral purpose of propagating society. This serves an interest to the state. What interest does gay marriage serve? The establishment of fairness? Marriage isn’t a right. Gay marriage doesn’t do anything for us like heterosexual marriage does.
Gays can be in committed relationships with financial stability by means of living wills, trustee designation, and cosigning and homes, etc. So, what is the reason for this recognition? Because they love each other?
Since it’s all about the love, where do we stop after homosexuals?
blatantblue on May 30, 2008 at 12:17 AM
The reason government is involved in marriage is because stable families help society. Government is not involved in marriage because it validates people’s emotions.
If a man wants to marry his car, robot, dog, comatose sister, etc is that good for society?
Why does such a small part of the population think the rest of society needs to make special rules for them? There are lots of things people cannot do because they do not qualify or meet certain criteria.
EJDolbow on May 30, 2008 at 12:18 AM
One of my many celebrity clients asked me if he could divorce his wife and marry a big fat cigar. Then in a later session with his wife she asked me if her husband did that could she become Barak Obama’s second wife and then become first lady again if Barack Obama’s first wife just happens to die of some mysterious unknown cause. This is a little out of my experience so what do you think that I should tell them?
Sigy on May 30, 2008 at 12:23 AM
The problem with gay marriage is not the “union of consenting adults” part. It’s changing Family Law from being based on “a mother + a father” to “parent A + parent B”, or in the case of gay couples “parent A + parent C – parent B” (since they are physically incapable of procreating). The argument from the gay rights crowd is that families are already so dysfunctional what’s wrong with instituionalizing the degridation of mothers/fathers (depending on whether a child is involved in a gay or lesbian custody dispute). I would counter that by pointing out that legalizing dysfunction only leads to vastly more dysfunction.
I cannot understand why women aren’t more outraged by this gay marriage societal tsunami. A gay man I knew well (before he died of AIDS) explained his ideal worldview as a return to ancient Greece, where men and boys had intense loving and intellectually stimulating relationships. The role of women was basically as brood mares. Bear children, shut up and get out of the way (you icky females). Seems to me they’re the ones who get screwed (figuratively and literally).
miles on May 30, 2008 at 12:47 AM
You could have made the slippery slope argument against interracial marriage in the 1960’s. At that time did two people have an inherent right to marry outside of their race? If the state had a compelling interest, and popular backing, to maintain societal norms by giving everyone the same right to marry and produce children within their race, what right did people have to marry for love?
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 12:49 AM
He is “recognizing” something that does not exist. If the people of his state do not want their society changed in such a drastic way then he is “imposing” it on them.
EJDolbow on May 30, 2008 at 12:51 AM
He imposes taxes that I have to pay or laws that I have to follow. How is someone elses marriage an imposition similar to taxes or laws that restrict activity?
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Somehow gay marriage would suddenly make that scenario more desirable to straight men? None that I know.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Surely God will not stand for this.
Dave Rywall on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Haha excellent. How will He show his displeasure? Are we going to be hit with the plague or locusts, or the rivers turning to blood?
e-pirate on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 AM
If anyone notices, I think the gov. has removed one of the mitigating arguments gay marriage advocates have used on a state by state basis. “If we allow gay marriage in Mass., it won’t affect South Carolina… etc.” He is basically invoking the full faith and credit clause to recognize a marriage that could not have happened in his state.
If this stands, how long do you think it will take before full faith & credit cases pop up in other states? How wide will this new front get in the next year? 5 years?
Also, please remember that the full faith and credit clause was part of the argument against allowing it in “just one state….”
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 1:06 AM
If the state’s interest in marriage is paramount (rather than the individual’s liberty) the would the state, further, have the right to intervene into a marriage if it didn’t produce enough children? Similarly, would fertility tests as part of the marriage license application be out of bounds?
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Legal Lad explains the reasoning behind California’s gay marriage decision.
The link is to a transcript of a podcast about the gay marriage decision. There is an option at the top of the page to listen to the audio.
This is why the decision is so critical. The court ruled that homosexuality is on par with gender and race as requiring protection against discrimination. Even though there is no proof one way or another that sexual orientation is a genetic trait or a behavioral trait, the court as in essence decided it is a genetic trait. This sets precedent for homosexuals to begin suing for all kinds of special protection. The decision also opens the doors for courts in other states to cite it as precedent. This is why the homosexuals have been fighting for marriage: it legitimizes their lifestyles and is the foundation on which they will try to become a protected “minority.”
The way this will play out is someday a pastor will be sued for preaching the Bible in church as being bigoted and discriminatory against homosexuals.
Mallard T. Drake on May 30, 2008 at 1:18 AM
I’m reading about Jason and the Argonauts now, and the relationships between men and women are quite romantic, and many highly committed. The males weren’t all paragons of monogamy, but the women were objects of desire, no question about it.
I’ve heard NAMBLA style relationships are popular in Islamic countries though, so I’d suggest exploring those places to folks like Michael Jackson who like it.
funky chicken on May 30, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 Next »