Log in

View Full Version : 2 states-same voice-No Gay Marriage


Dante
July 6th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Two State Courts OK Gay Marriage Bans
Judges in New York and Georgia Rule Against Same-Sex Unions
By MARK JOHNSON, AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (July 6) - The top courts in two states dealt a setback Thursday to the movement to legalize gay marriage, with New York's highest court ruling same-sex unions are not allowed under state law and the Georgia Supreme Court reinstating a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.



In New York, the Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision that the state's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.

In Georgia, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling, deciding unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. The ban had been approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights. Forty-five states have barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments.



The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right" since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition."

"It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady, who is raising an 11-year-old son with her partner, Tonja Alvis. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors."

The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts.

"I am satisfied that today's decision by the state's highest court to uphold our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is the right one," Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, said in a statement.

The lawsuit over the Georgia ban focused on the wording of the ballot measure that voters approved.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language addressed more than one issues and that it was misleading because it asked voters to decide on both same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.

State officials held that Georgians knew what they were voting on when they overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure.

In New York, 44 couples acted as plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits filed two years ago after the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage sparked gay marriage controversies across the country.

With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates marshaled forces for a court fight. Among the plaintiffs were the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell and his longtime partner.

Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law.

"We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us."

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are also deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry, and a handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts.


7/6/2006 12:48:35

Bobby
July 6th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Wow, I'm suprised about New York.. that's really dumb.

Dante
July 6th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Yea I am suprised about the New York one, Georgia not really

redcar
July 6th, 2006, 06:25 PM
this use to annoy me seeing things like this happen, but now i realise people who make these decisions are of a different generation and one that isnt as open about homosexuality as we are. its when our generation gets to that level that i think we will see more changes happen for the better.

MoveAlong
July 6th, 2006, 06:30 PM
Damn :( I wonder if it's goin' to be allowed in my life time at all in the U.S :|

Dante
July 6th, 2006, 06:30 PM
this use to annoy me seeing things like this happen, but now i realise people who make these decisions are of a different generation and one that isnt as open about homosexuality as we are. its when our generation gets to that level that i think we will see more changes happen for the better.

I never looked at it like that, but I partially agree though, the part where i disagree is that the generation in power now have convinced a large part of our generation to think this way.

boognish
July 11th, 2006, 02:06 AM
first, georgia voted on it, their bad
second, if the law says "A marrige is a union between a man and a woman" then you cant really read it as "A marrige is a union between a man and a man, a woman and a man, and a woman and a woman" thats sorta like reading "Dougnuts are round" as "Dougnuts are round and square and triangular".
and third, i have always been agains gay marrige. Gay people have no right to redefine the religious ideals on marrige, leave marrige to the churches.
Now i am for gay unions. Gay people should be allowed to become an unionized couple in my mind. but marrige is between a man and a woman as defined by the churches, and if gay people want to be married the government cant stop them, but if the church stops you, tough luck buddy. but the government should allow gay unions. i have nothing against a gay union

MoveAlong
July 11th, 2006, 03:01 AM
Ok here, I just want to ask some things.

"A marrige is a union between a man and a woman" then you cant really read it as "A marrige is a union between a man and a man, a woman and a man, and a woman and a woman" thats sorta like reading "Dougnuts are round" as "Dougnuts are round and square and triangular".
Now, keep in mind please, that I don't want to start a full-blown argument or get anyone mad :)

I don't think that they'd mention dougnuts in the bible. Now, most dougnuts are usually round. That's why most people think a round dougnut instead of a square or triangle dougnut. Some are different shapes. But that has nothing to do with people who love each other.

I really don't want to offend you, so I'll say this in the nicest way possible :)
Why do you trust in the bible so much?

Now i am for gay unions. Gay people should be allowed to become an unionized couple in my mind. but marrige is between a man and a woman as defined by the churches, and if gay people want to be married the government cant stop them, but if the church stops you, tough luck buddy. but the government should allow gay unions. i have nothing against a gay union

Thank you, I'm glad we can have something ^_^ But, what about those religious gays that want to get married under the sanctity of the bible? Should they have an opinion? There are gays who are Republicans aswell.

Rooster
July 11th, 2006, 03:55 AM
Ok here, I just want to ask some things.


Now, keep in mind please, that I don't want to start a full-blown argument or get anyone mad :)

I don't think that they'd mention dougnuts in the bible. Now, most dougnuts are usually round. That's why most people think a round dougnut instead of a square or triangle dougnut. Some are different shapes. But that has nothing to do with people who love each other.



Gr8 metaphor.

MoveAlong
July 11th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Gr8 metaphor.
What? How did that help and what did you mean?

Rooster
July 11th, 2006, 03:59 AM
I mean you put your opinion in a truthful and intelligent way. S'pose it didn't "help". I was just making notice.

MoveAlong
July 11th, 2006, 04:01 AM
What I did was I quoted boognish, since he originally said something about dougnuts. Plus, I thought you were being sarcastic :P

Rooster
July 11th, 2006, 04:04 AM
Well uh, I wasn't being sarcastic.

Hyper
July 11th, 2006, 04:18 AM
1st I dont think the gays or lesbians should be allowed to marry also the 'marriage' thing in GB isnt a real marriage it just ensures that the partner gets the ( Damn losing my words so il explain very primitively )

If 1 partner dies to anything the other partner gets the 'stuff' hes or her partner had

Now I don't hate the gays or lesbians but marriage is a thing between man and woman

The gays, lesbians can be with each other live with each other, and pass their belongings on to their partners if they die.. ( There are wills for that )

redcar
July 11th, 2006, 04:23 AM
the point of gay marraige is to afford the same rights that hetrosexual couples have. a gay couple is no different, it consists of two people who love each other and want to have the ability to show that. its not just about leaving "stufff" to another partner its about equality for gay couples.

Hyper
July 11th, 2006, 04:29 AM
The reason why I brought up the GB example is because thats all they got..

Also religion is hardly against gay marriages.. I myself do admit I am against them too for I am religious but be glad that the world is changing more toleratable as not too long ago there was massive racism and hate against same genderd couples.. I dont hate gays but from my religious aspects I belive they shouldnt be allowed to marry

Dante
July 13th, 2006, 08:20 AM
The reason why I brought up the GB example is because thats all they got..

Also religion is hardly against gay marriages.. I myself do admit I am against them too for I am religious but be glad that the world is changing more toleratable as not too long ago there was massive racism and hate against same genderd couples.. I dont hate gays but from my religious aspects I belive they shouldnt be allowed to marry

So are heterosexual copuples preserving the sanctity of marriage, with a 57% divorce rate? and obviously homesexual couples aren't included in that statistic, since they're not allowed to get married

Φρανκομβριτ
July 13th, 2006, 03:08 PM
those homophobic pigs. Who are we hurting?

cmpcmp
July 16th, 2006, 03:16 AM
I would humbly sugest you take this to the thread under "debate" that is tittled some thing about unions (cmpcmp will be the creator)

MoveAlong
July 16th, 2006, 03:21 AM
I would humbly sugest you take this to the thread under "debate" that is tittled some thing about unions (cmpcmp will be the creator)
I don't think that this thread in particular has enough debate in it. Not enough people really argued enough about this to make it critical move in my opinion. Also, you couldn't be the creator since it's already been created :D It would be a moved topic, instead of a changed or new topic.

fdsgfg55465
July 22nd, 2006, 05:01 PM
i am not gay but i am a strong believer that they should have normal rights! i mean why shouldn't they?!