May 31, 2006
Gay Marriage Case at Court of Appeals
Today, the Court of Appeals will be hearing from lawyers about gay marriage in NYC today. Back in February 2005, a State Supreme Court judge ruled that gay and lesbian couples have equal access to marriage, but the city appealed and an appellate court reversed the decision. Which brings the case to the Court of Appeals. And though Mayor Blooomberg supports gay marriage, he does hope the city's lawyers will win, "I would never want to hire lawyers that tried to lose - they will try to win." Mayor Bloomberg wants NY State to decide whether gay marriage is legal, because it's all about the Constitution (his premise being if NYC starts to perform gay marriages, only for them to be overturned by the state later on, what good is that?). Anyway, Bloomberg claims he will ask Albany to allow gay marriage if the city wins...and if the city doesn't win, he'll let gay marriages be performed. Oh, to be a second term mayor! Gothamist hopes that if the State of Appeals rules in the plaintiffs' favor, then NY State will start to take up the gay marriage cause. At the moment, Governor Pataki won't touch it (of course) and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has been cagey about it (he supports it, but it's not legal in NY State, though NY State recognizes gay marriages from other states).
You can see the plaintiff's documents and more at Lambda Legal, which also has bios and photos of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit - they are couples who have been together for five to twenty-four years.
|
The liberal strategy is to turn the US into mini-Holland. Let's see what's going on there. In Holland, gay marriage activists have already moved on. Powerful green party wants to legalize group marriage and first semi-official group marriages have already taken place. There is also a new political leftist party (created this week!) that wants to legalize pedophilia. For them, childlove is a civil rights issue.
In fact, pedophilia activism has long traditions among Holland's liberal far-left activists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism
Polygamy activists have also clearly stated their goals in the US but so far they have been advised to keep a low profile. Gay marriage first, then polygamy, then pedophilia laws pushed through courts (sorry "intergenerational relationships" as Univ. of Southern California calls it).
Also growing muslim population supports pedophilia laws since marriages involving 10 years girls are popular among Holland's muslim population.
To be honest they have a point. Once you allow gay marriages, there is no reason not to allow group marriages and childlove relations.
Anyway, society has to draw a line somewhere and current line is fine even if some Clinton-appointed activists judges try to change society. (Run for office if you want to change laws).
I know for democratic party things look great in Holland.
Golly, this thread's going to be fun in half an hour.
When did crazy people take over the comments here? This place is getting as bad as the Craigslist rants-n-raves board.
I have a wild idea: How about letting people to decide this in free elections? yeah, I know, not going to happen. Democracy is for other people.
I'm so sick of people implying that homosexuals are naturally related to pedophiles.
You are clearly a prejudiced racist and against civil rights. Intergenerational love is a social (civil rights) movement. Yes, the advocates happen to be far-left gays but that's not an issue. Besides, according to wikipedia, they want to call it "boylove or girlove" not pedophilia.
Let's see if they capture majority in Holland's parlament in the next elections.
ur, letting the voting population decide individual issues on the ballot doesn't work. See California's brilliant defeat of fair redistricting. And in a blue state with highly educated, more intelligent and open minded voters!
jayKayEss,
Nobody is saying homosexuals are pedophiles. It's that the legal argument for one can be used by the other.
Clinton is a Lawyer first, both of them. And very good lawyers, at that. That is what lawyers do, make and change laws. She may be running for office to make an even and level playing ground for everyone. I have not, however, read up on her stance on Gay marriage.
The country (U.S.A.)does not have the same "Victorian" motivated soical atmosphere it had in 1830's and 1940's. The economy is different, the imported immigrant is different, the imported educated people are different, the imported uneducated people are different. That is not to say we should have a free for all and an "anything goes" political system. But we should reconsider the needs of every tax payer in the country. The constitution should be the basis for all laws in the U.S.A, especially, those with no religious connection.
Other society's should only be an example and used as a measuring stick, if they have made a successfull attempt at bettering human kind. I have been to Holland. I was not that impressed with all of the freedom of will. The late night TV sexually explicit commercials were nerve racking.
This country (U.S.A.) has allowed itself to become very secular while trying to maintain a religious image. However, you can not invite differences to the "table, " so to speak, and then when people begin to show their differences, turn around and tell them they have to stop and can no longer sit at the table. It would be good to hear public discusions on the pros and cons to gay marriage and how it may affect the American adults and children.
In regards to children and adult relationships, the muslims are going by the Quran, with a long history and justification for why they make certain religious decisions. Muslim consult Allah all the time.
The muslim historical reasons for child/adult marriage is similar to the Judaic Old Testament reasons for an adult man marrying a child. It was normally an older man marrying a young girl. It was generally a pratical decision and economically motivated. They would normally wait until the child was of a certain age before sexual contact was made. The Americans nor the Dutch are living in a society that warrants child/adult marriage.
You can not compare the the Muslims Quran decisions with American or Dutch politics.
Americans consult the constitution. The Americans have seperate church and state. Therefore, legal decisions are going to sway toward secular. (Godless decisions)
If something is not in the constituition, then the American people, who are the government, should look at the reasons it is not there. Do we need a "more perfect union." Who or what constitutes the perfect union today?
thinkharder, I don't think that pedophiles could use the same legal argument as same-sex marriage advocates. In marriage, whether the couple is mixed-gender or not, everyone is/would be of age and the relationship is consensual. With pedophiles, the child, under the law and in nearly everyone's mind, isn't even capable of giving consent, making the activity inherently nonconsensual. I fail to see the similarity.
As far as a response to the slippery slope/polygamy argument, I can't say it better than Evan Wolfson: When opponents bring up polygamy or other diversions, it means they don't have an answer to the question, "What reason does the government have for denying same-sex couples who have made a personal commitment in their lives the equal commitment of marriage under the law?" Same-sex couples and their kids excluded from marriage are not saying, "Let's have no rules." They are saying, "Let us have what you have -- the freedom to marry one person we love, with the same rules, the same responsibilities, and the same respect."
Also, a judge from Tennessee once wrote, "We might have the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with his sister...The Turk or the Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors ... Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us." Of course, that was in the 19th century and was about interracial marriage.
i agree, think even harder. unless child pychology is going to be revolutionized by members of NAMBLA and other like-minded groups, and there is a paradigm shift in what constitutes statutory sexual misconduct (i.e., when someone is considered old enough under the law) pedophilia and homosexuality are mutually exlusive both socially and legally.
I can understand how the gay marriage argument could (and thats a hell of a stretch) be logically extended to include pedophilia, but the shifts in culture and society that would precipitate that on a large scale is not on the horizon, in my opinion. It is probably, as originally pointed out by the first poster, ONLY confined to a small group of like-minded people in the Netherlands.
It is their right to attempt to allow these practices, just as it is equally anyone elses right to attempt to disallow these practices (in a legal fashion).
But way to drum up controversy by already declaring that armaggedon is upon us because of a group in Holland.
The voting public. gotta love 'em.
Just FYI, Lambda's case is only one of four being argued today.
Info on the ACLU case, one of the other cases being heard today, including plaintiff bios and legal briefs, can be found here.
With pedophiles, the child, under the law and in nearly everyone's mind, isn't even capable of giving consent,
As you should know, laws are irrelevant as activist judge can change them anytime. We can (and should) learn about the examples in other countries. Polygamy and childlove are being promoted by the same people who promoted gay marriage and there is no legal argument to stop them (at least polygamy) once the gay marriage is in place.
"If 3 people love each other, why they can't marry". What about 4 people?
Clearly activist judges should allow them as well once gay marriage is legal. People cannot be discriminated in this way.
This issue is clearly controversial in this country. I think the latest polls show that 55% oppose it. Controversial issues should be changed by congress, not by activist judges. Personally I oppose gay marriage, but I will accept it if the majority wants it (and vote accordingly).
That's why we have elections. Elections have consequenses.
chr: Just because a judge stated that does not mean he didn't have some inner issues from the era in which they were made. In fact, coming from Tennesse, I wander how sound his judgement was in regards to any race that was not caucasian.
What does inter-racial marriage have to do with same sex marriage. The only similarity is that they were/are both outlawed. A person can not compare the two in the racist context because the context does not apply within the constitution. The ideas in the constitution were not based on race. The limitations came to Blacks, Indians and women when racist people attempt to apply the constitution for their own ignorant agenda.
You are mixing apples and oranges as if the legalities for two heterosexuals marrying is the the same as two gay people marrying. The reason for the outlaw of inter- racial marriage is a completely different context and logic.
"Elections have consequenses."
Bloomberg won in a landslide, he supports changing the law. Spitzer will also win in a landslide, and he supports changing the law. So let's get to work and change the freaking law!
sorry crh. spelled you initial wrong.
The law should only be changed for the correct reasons. It should not be for a private economic gain by the state and political leverage for the state. Hence, people moving here because they can live married. Or the state hoping people will live here becasue they bring in hudge joint incomes and republican votes. To legalize gay marriage for those reasons would be selling New York short and creating a disfunctional enviornment for everyone. Remember M. Bloomberg is Republican.
so, a small group of radicals in a multi-party democracy like holland equal anti-democratic 'activist judges'. gay marriage will usher in polygamy... but isn't polygamy sanctioned in the christian bible? and laws against inter-racial marriage are not comparable to anti-gay-marriage laws because... well, they're different.
there's not a thread of logic in any of these ramblings. i've always heard that the nice lesbian couple down the street and the two old gay men in my building threaten family life and god-fearing people; i've just never heard a sensible reason as to how they threaten them. i'm still waiting...
statenislander: can you explain this statement.
"...and laws against inter-racial marriage are not comparable to anti-gay-marriage laws because... well, they're different."
"but isn't polygamy sanctioned in the christian bible?"
I know you have not read the bible so I will fill you in. The New Testament does not subscribe to polygamy. However, the Old Testment will give you examples of many kings that "purchased" many wives and concubines. Solomon in particular and Jacob who married four sisters.
Also in the Old Testament you will read about situations where a man was required to marry and take care of his brothers wife after he died.
One spouse is prominant in the New Testament.
The Judaic Christian takes the lead from the Jewish faith of having one God, One Husband to one wife, and One wife to one Husband. "The man shall leave his mother and cleave unto his wife," one wife, New Testament. There is no plural in this context. Paul, New Testament prophet, stated that it is best not the marry at all. He said marriage is for the weak. That was his opinion, of course.
There is no context for multiple marriage in the New Testment which fullfilled the Old Testment as a continuation of a law.
innocent bystander: "What does inter-racial marriage have to do with same sex marriage. The only similarity is that they were/are both outlawed."
And that precisely the same argument was used against interracial marriages as is now used agaginst same-sex marriages. Clearly the consequences identified as occurring from interracial marriage did not actually occur. Why are we to presume that they would as a result of same-sex marriage? When it becomes legal and generally accepted, the doomsday arguments against same-sex marriage are going to look as silly as the same arguments against interracial marriage do now (if they don't already).
john: "Polygamy and childlove are being promoted by the same people who promoted gay marriage." I don't agree and doubt the evidence exists that would make me. Even if all polygamy advocates are gay (which is far from the truth), obviously not all queer folks are polygamist -- far far from it. Though they may share some advocates, the vast majority on the side of same-sex marriage don't advocate recognition of marriages of more than two people.
Also, controversial issues, I believe, should be solved by the system and include can include congressional action and judges. Do you decry the legislative and executive branches for having been "activist" for passing civil rights laws? Those in our government create or interpret law as they see fit in light of the Constitution, existing law, and their own beliefs -- how could any politician or judge NOT be activist?
And we have elections, yes, to elect people to office so they can creeate laws. But the precise reason we have a judicial system is to balance the power invested in voters and their elected officials; it is the intention of the system that the branches be able to oppose to each other. Take away that ability to oppose and the Constitution and our government crumble to the ground.
For all and sundry citing the 'slippery slope' fallacy: note that those who argue that the legalization/de-criminalization of certain conduct would lead to further legalization/de-criminalization have been right. The sodomy cases did lead to the gay marriage cases. Even though the Lawrence decision said not to do it, Mass. courts did use it to justify gay marriage.
I would suggest a wager: $5 says gay marriage decisions will, within your lifetime, be used to justify group-marriages.
well, it is already being used by polygamy activists in other countries (and even here..although they know that better not to advocate it too loudly until the suckers have legalised gay marriage).
Why wouldn't 3 people be allowed to marry? (if marriage is not between 1 man and 1 woman anymore).
Here is the next step once alternative marriages are legalized:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/
British woman marries dolphin, tying the net after 15-year courtship
JERUSALEM - Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.
In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.
Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss.
15-years in a loving relationship so marriage is certainly something to consider..unless those bigots and racists try to discriminate and block that.
update: Cindy the dolphin and Sharon Tendler?
This must be the first interspecies gay marriage. Congratulations are in order to Cindy and Sharon!
Here come the brides
First group marriage ("triple marriage") in Holland. Congratulations to Victor, Bianca and Mirjam!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage..Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage was famously premised on a "small step" strategy, with each small increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps.
"society has to draw a line somewhere"
[1] Posted by: mini-Holland | May 31, 2006 12:26 PM
Consenting Adult Humans only.
"Consenting Adult Humans only."
:-)
crh: thanks for explaining. However, I do not see the parallel. You can say that the arguments are the same.
Keeping this all in context when we speak of the Constitution. We are talking about men and woman that subscribed to heterosexual relationships. The inner marriage also held true for Catholics, Protestant, Jews and Indians, sister and brothers. The unwritten law was that they were not allowed to marry.
It was proven through the amendmant 13 and 14 that blacks are no different than any other person in America. Later they said the same for woman. It also proved ignorance on the side of the educators that came up with concepts of inferiority and the exclusion of a persons rights.
The fundamental problem is that the idea of gay marriage is asking people to reject religious laws to make way for what would be a blatant immoral sin. The US was founded on the same religious laws that you are telling them to ignore. That is why people go to a licensed pastor or priest to marry. It is sacred. Those that go to the justice of the peace are there out of convience.
Religious people have been taught that a society's dimise is connected to improper human involvement with each other. This includes illegal money practice, illegal war, illegal political leaderships and administrations. Moving outside of the above guidlines have always lead to a country's down fall.
I can see giving homosexual the right to marry as tax pay participant in the country. However the problem you run into is that a man may want to marry his dog next. Or marry his horse. It sounds extreme, but same sex partners have always been associated with sodomy and unnatural sexual behavior. Where does the society draw its line for moral behaviors.
Good fricking grief.
My Jesus forgives the homophobia of your Jesus.
Paddy: Sorry. There is no "my Jesus your Jesus." There is only one Jesus. He is not a homo or homophobic. You either accept the teachings of Christ or you don't. In Judaic religion the expectation is for men to be attracted and marry females and vis versa, females marry males.
However, if that is not for you, that is accepted. But... you can't through a blanket statment at behaviors or thoughts as needing to "be forgiven." That is why Hell exists. Some people are not forgiven.
Priest don't marry. They fore go sex and marriage. They have chosen not to serve God within a marital relationship and children. They have chosen celibacy.
There is one idea. It prevents confusion when some people are sent to hell and some to heaven. The laws are very clear. Take them or leave them.
Except that Christ himself did not speak against same-sex love. The "laws" you speak of are not laws. They are individualized interpretations of Christ's teachings.
"It prevents confusion when some people are sent to hell and some to heaven. The laws are very clear. Take them or leave them."
Clearly you must have served on some Afterlife Processing Manual Documentation team, except I shudder to think of the proofreading errors.
Paddy: The bible can be used by gay people or anyone for that matter as a guide for life. If a person says they live by the bible. Then they live what is in it. Not by what they want it to read. You can not argue what is not there.
[Jesus did attend a wedding for a man and woman and tuned the water to wine.
Jesus did speak to a woman at Jacob's well and asked her to go get her husband, not her partner. ]
If you are a non-believer the laws are interpretations of Christ. Interpretation just means you took a guess. You don't have to guess what scriptures mean. The bible is very clear.
Just as a man a woman can not live together with out being married, have children without being married, is the same as two men or two woman living together as intimate sexual partners and calling it marriage. Non of those relationships is consistant with the Judaic scripture.
(Ephesians 5:22), the Bible says “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (verse 25).
those liberal dutch people..Gay marriage done deal, group marriage is de-facto legalised so time to move on.
Thursday, 1 June 2006, 16:47 GMT 17:47 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/5038682.stm
A political party with a paedophile agenda has been registered in The Netherlands
The party plans to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and for legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals. The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party says it promotes freedom of speech and will stand in May elections. They also want to break the "negative" stigma surrounding paedophilia by getting into parliament.
"From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mr.10:6-9, Mt.19:4-6).
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife has… the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband" (1Cor.7:3-4, 14).
Grounds for divorce: "except in the grounds of unchastity or fornication", or "illicit marriage", or "unless the marriage is unfaithful"
And thus: My Jesus forgives the intolerance of your Jesus.
Oh, it's much easier to routinely quote scripture. Critical thinking is too hard! Polly want a cracker?
Sorry. You can't use the bible for you cause. It is as simple as that. The bible does not support gay marriage. It does support gay people. It won't help you if you want to use it to justify gay marriage.
Now, American civil policy, a new law, might help you. That is all the scripture is about.
OK, I'm out for the day. But before I go:
When I said, "Oh, it's much easier to routinely quote scripture. Critical thinking is too hard! Polly want a cracker?" I was talking about you. All you do is quote scripture. You're content to mouth other people's interpretations instead of seeking and validating truth. You're a parrot. Do you want a more literal explanation?
I wasn't using the bible to support gay marriage. I haven't even talked about it. You, on the other hand, are using the bible to further intolerance.
What about Cindy the dolphin? Hasn't she a right to marry Sharon the human? What's wrong with that gay marriage?
"...Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves,
for we can't help telling the things which we saw and heard."
Acts 4:19-20
Paddy: When are you going to show us all how to be critical thinkers. Hitler was a critical thinker also. He failed trying to revise the bible to fit his life choices. By the way, the bible rejects "same sex-love" too.
Checkout what the board is about. Not "same sex-love" but gay-marriage. You responded to my thread. My thread is about gay-marriage.
again, our democracy does not mean that the majority of voters gets to dictate what the minority of people do. that is simply not the way our Constitution works. more time in the library and less time on gothamist might do some folks well.
the ballot initiatives and even constitutional amendments do not stop the overwhelming force of sexuality and the human need to connect emotionally. no matter what happens with the laws, gay people will continue to couple up. (gay high school students today face much less stigma than those coming out 20 years ago.) the fact that there are posters on gothamist who think i shouldn't love up my girlfriend doesn't stop me from doing so.
by the way, there are not MILLIONS of people lining up for plural marriages. it just isn't that popular, so i can't see how that can be used as a parallel. it is also enormously offensive to say that wanting to marry my girlfriend is the same as someone wanting to marry their cat. ditto with the pedophile thing, which is a CRIME by the way. watching tv with your partner, having sex, and then going to sleep is not a crime in this country. so what is the BFD?
and i am also STILL WAITING to hear what threat we pose to the general population...still waiting...
from wiki:
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [4] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure.
Let me be the first to state I'll actively lobby for group marriage if "gay marriage" becomes legal. Who is the government to keep me from loving another... and another... and another...
i would think you would have difficulty convincing even one hapless soul to marry you, much less multiple people.