Gothamist: NY State Court of Appeals Rejects Gay Marriage

latecoming reader/commenter

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:48 -0500

re: comments 40, 44, 46 (in case anyone looks back upon this post and is still wondering) LBTQGNC = Lesbian, Bi, Trans, Queer, Gender Non-Conforming

Not Amused

Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:23:31 -0500

Personally , I could give a flying- Rat Infested shithole of a fuck who you sleep with!!!! It's none of anybodies business. If you want a dick in your ass then that's your problem. As far the Bloomberg is concerned, Fuck him! He's just playing favorites here, Gassing all the gays of the city up trying to win there support! This is not a relavent discussion worhty of serious merit!!!!

confused

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:35:27 -0500

Confused said: Forgive my ignorance, but the Right Rides article uses the acronym (initialism, actually) "LBTGNC" and the Right Rides website uses "LBTQGNC". I know what most of the letters stand for, but can someone help me out with the NC part? I've already checked Google and Acronym Finder without success. GiGi said: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I even did a Google search, and the only link that came up was for RightRides. I've heard of LGBT (lesbian gay bi trans), but never LBTQGNC. I say keep it simple. Confused says: My best guess is: Lesbian, Bi, Trans, Queer, Gay, ???, Cross-dress. I've even seen "TS" for Two Spirit (taken from Native American terminology), but this particular combination left me scratching my head.

AT

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:13:46 -0500

Judge Kaye's dissent nearly made me cry with relief that at least somebody gets it: "Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them."

GiGi

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:16:13 -0500

Confused said: Forgive my ignorance, but the Right Rides article uses the acronym (initialism, actually) "LBTGNC" and the Right Rides website uses "LBTQGNC". I know what most of the letters stand for, but can someone help me out with the NC part? I've already checked Google and Acronym Finder without success. GiGi says: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I even did a Google search, and the only link that came up was for RightRides. I've heard of LGBT (lesbian gay bi trans), but never LBTQGNC. I say keep it simple.

hee hee

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:03:11 -0500

i'd vote for president busch! par-tyyyyy!!!

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:51:34 -0500

Further more, Agree, regarding citations, go ask our Commander and Chief, President George W. Busch. (Top General) Salute.......!!!!!

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:47:16 -0500

Go read the constitution... Why wait for my citations when Michael, whom you agree with, said he has studied the constitution over the years. Consult the author of thread with which you are in agreement. Let him state where there is no reference to woman and men supporting the American society through their marrital union. He seems to have some sort of contradiction to what I stated about the constitution.

Confused

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:20:41 -0500

Forgive my ignorance, but the Right Rides article uses the acronym (initialism, actually) "LBTGNC" and the Right Rides website uses "LBTQGNC". I know what most of the letters stand for, but can someone help me out with the NC part? I've already checked Google and Acronym Finder without success.

lgbtech

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:16:55 -0500

The Empire State Pride Agenda is organizing statewide rallies to call for swift legislative action in granting equal access to marriage. The rallies will be held in seven locations across the state, including New York City, Long Island, the Hudson Valley, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse; in attendance will be same-sex couples, local elected officials, union leaders and clergy. Please visit http://www.prideagenda.org/ to find a rally near you and go show your support tonight!

Agree

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:08:29 -0500

I'm with Michael. I'd also like to see mh's constitutional citations about marriage. They should be very informative based on his previous posts. People keep asking for them, it should be very easy for him to deliver them since he is sure they are in there.

Michael

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:45:53 -0500

mh: Fair enough. You paraphased rather than directly quoting. Nevertheless, you should be able to cite someplace in the constitution where a reasonable person can infer that "marriage between men and woman is for the purpose of supporting and helping the Americna society's productive growth." Your words about what the "constitution states" I'll be waiting...

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:37:53 -0500

hey: keep the dictionary because it seems my point came across loud and clear. There was no mis- understanding of my thread on your part. You wouldn't feel sooooo....compelled to take a jab at my thread if the spelling interrupted the thought. ha ha he he he..... The idea and context were understood. That is all that counts for me. ______________________________ Michael, who are you kidding. Did you "study" the constitution and forget to comprehend it? The only quoting in regards to the constitution came from your thread. There are no quotation marks in my thread. Mary had a lamb. It was little. Do I have to quote "Mary Had A Little Lamb" for you too.

Jo

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:06:54 -0500

Also marriage is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. And what the Bible says matters.... why? I'm not a Christian. American citizens are not required to be Christian. Therefore the Bible should have nothing to do with our politics. I know, I know, our justice system was originally based on the ten commandments, blah, blah, blah. But we live in a country where freedom of religion should be respected (as dictated by our constitution, even!). So if you want to discriminate against people in YOUR bigoted churches, go right ahead. But don't expect to do it in OUR government. And perhaps the term "marriage" was once strictly a religious term for the union, but today it also describes the legal union between two individuals. Honestly, I think we oughta scrap the term "marriage" in all legal unions and refer to them all as civil unions, gay or straight. I don't want to be "married" if that's what churches call their discriminatory, hateful institution.

Jim

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:56:54 -0500

Why are gay marriage rights advocates so angry about this ruling? The proper way to introduce straight/gay equality is thru the Legislature, not thru the judiciary. If there are not enough votes in Assembly or Senate to pass it, then wait a couple of election cycles and try again. If it is really important, it will become an issue during campaigns, and this will sort itself out. Short circuting the process via the courts, as astutely pointed out by # 1 & # 4, is a guaranteed short term success/long term failure.

Michael

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:47:06 -0500

We, as gay people, should take our founding fathers to heart and fight back in a way that will be felt. We need to start an organized gay movement to stop paying all state and local and federal taxes until we have equal representation and rights across the board. Currently the estimate is about 10% of the 300,000 million Americans, or 30 million, are gay. Anybody for putting 30 million people in jail and paying their rent, food and medical by the state minus the tax input of all 30 million. It takes guts but if we are organized and commited we could do this and it would work because in America, money is the bottom line.

Charles

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:40:57 -0500

Someone who doesn't see things your way isn't necessarily a 'troll'. Sorry to break it to you.

Paddy

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:24:59 -0500

The trolls are out in force.

hey

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:10:08 -0500

hey mh: can i borrow your copy of the constitution? you seem to have a different copy than the rest of us. also, i can return the dictionary i borrowed from you. you seem to need it more than i do.

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:03:16 -0500

"For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." This is why I do not judge/try to deny rights to others. People are free to love whomever they choose. And I am not even religious. [21] Posted by: from the bible | July 6, 2006 12:13 PM ______________________________ Yeah I can tell that you are not religious. Religious people know that they are not free to do whatever they please. However, judgement is a requirement for humans. The Bible is the only one source for judgement. Whether you are religious or not, you will still be judged by the law of God, the bible, not by the laws that you make up and live by. What would be the point of a God? You reap what you will sow. If you plant a disfunctional society, a difunctional society will grow.

R

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:56:25 -0500

The ruling reads "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... We hold, in sum, that the Domestic Relations Law's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not unconstitutional. We emphasize once again that we are deciding only this constitutional question." Gothamist's article begins with "The NY State Court of Appeals ruled that gay marriage is not allowed." Way to misinterpret, Gothamist. The ruling in no way states or implies that gay marriage is "not allowed". It only says that this is a matter for the legislature and not for the courts, which, though unfortunately it will delay things for a while, is not unreasonable from a legal standpoint.

rv

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:56:01 -0500

I find it interesting people quoting the Bible and have no idea what they are talking about. I am not perfect by any means but I do tithe to the church, I did wait until I was married and I do believe being gay is a lifestyle and a choice and is wrong. I do not have anything personal against anyone. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Michael

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:53:22 -0500

mh: "The constitution states that marriage between men and woman is for the purpose of supporting and helping the Americna society's productive growth." Wow... in all my years of studying the constitution, I must have missed that paragraph. I must have been distracted by all that blah-blah-blahing about "equal protection", "unenumerated rights", and "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" ...

anonyme

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:52:47 -0500

Quote: Gay marriage is ultimately what is going to SAVE marriage. So many gay couples I know have been together at least 5 years, and one couple I know has been together for over 30 years. That is a lot longer than most "straight" marriages. That's *way* longer than most gay relationships I have seen. But I am young (29), so maybe that's it. These long term ones you're mentioning are probably open marriages anyway.

Michael

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:51:03 -0500

Eric

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:50:03 -0500

"The constitution states that marriage between men and woman is for the purpose of supporting and helping the Americna society's productive growth." It does? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:38:17 -0500

Gay rights are not going to be accepted by a majority mindset until the culture of the America shows a need for gay rights. Woman working outside of the home did not become a "popular" idea until WWII. Production was critical for U.S.A military logistics. Men were not avilable to get the job done. There is not a large enough gay voting pole to sway a presidential election, the economic base for gay people is not compariable to that of the Hispanic race or Asian race. There are no statistics that show that gay families are better off then straight families. The constitution states that marriage between men and woman is for the purpose of supporting and helping the Americna society's productive growth. Mental productivity, economic productivity, and religious productivity. Women and men in America needed to reproduce families to perpetuate the climate for the "wholesome" family unit. Gay marriage is foreign. It is confusing.

from the bible

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:13:40 -0500

william

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:00:29 -0500

Well i think is just a waste of time talking about this topi, a lot of people here are and will never be open mind, and there is nothing we can do about it, they all think that being gay is just about sex and clubs and all the bad thinks but they don't have the time to think that we are just like them we think , smile, cry and have feelings for other, somethimes i think we make marrige so bad according to the goverment. how ever when JLo got marrie many times in around 2 years that was ok, when all this famous people do what ever they want when they get marrie and get divorce in 52 hours that sounds great and is a good education for out future crap....

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:58:06 -0500

hmm Wow one or two stories that have surfaced. No. Sorry to brake the news to you, the issues are different. Wake up.

Ian

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:49:53 -0500

It is despicable to blame flamboyant gays for damaging the movement for equal rights. You can be sure that these are the people who suffer others' prejudices the most and that someone would ask them to change before examining their own prejudices is completely the wrong approach. As long as they are not hurting anyone else, people should be allowed to express themselves in a manner of their own choosing, not subject to anyone else's "approval".

ah

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:47:33 -0500

Britney and Liza are perfect examples of why politicians and conservatives are protecting marriage from gays...nice. We need to support politicians who won't shy from protecting all taxpayers' rights, gays or straight.

Kojak

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:40:01 -0500

Are Civil Unions such a horrible thing? Since marriage started as a man with a woman, let it stay that way. It’s only to placate the Christian nut jobs anyway. Most arguments I’m hearing for gay marriage is for them to obtain the same rights as married couples. Accept Civil Unions now, and later on go for Gay Marriage when the conservative side of the country becomes less homophobic. I think there are bigger threats to the institution of marriage than gays getting hitched. Last time I checked it wasn’t their fault the divorce rate is at 50% in this country. http://gaytmndlogo.ytmnd.com/

Margo

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:28:23 -0500

Gay marriage is ultimately what is going to SAVE marriage. So many gay couples I know have been together at least 5 years, and one couple I know has been together for over 30 years. That is a lot longer than most "straight" marriages.

btw

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:24:46 -0500

I think most "straight" people who spend this much time/energy worried about gay marriage and homosexuality "eroding American values" are perhaps "concerned" with their own sexual orientation. Personally, I'm straight and could give a hoot what two dudes do. But then again, I am OK with *my* sexuality.

hmm

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:18:55 -0500

"I haven't read anywhere in history about gay people being dragged from the back of a pick up truck." What about Matthew Shepard? Kevin Aviance? "Where are there seperate water fountains for gay people." No, but it is illegal to adopt/foster children in some states and illegal to donate blood if you are gay. "I haven't seen any gay people being hung from a tree. Or laws that made it legal to lynch gay people." Well, it was illegal in many places to be gay for a long time. I don't recall it being illegal to be African American. "The black civil rights and gay rights are as different as night and day." Only in that ppl now feel as comfortable discriminating against gay people as they once did against African Americans. "Also marriage is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman." The bible also frowns upon divorce, sex before marriage and states you should give 10% of your income to the church. You doing all that too? Somehow, I doubt it. Love the religious ppl who cherry-pick what they want from the Bible.

boo

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:17:31 -0500

oh that's right MH, gays don't get dragged from cars, just beaten and left to die on fences. wtf??? as for all gays wearing thongs and boas, 1: it was pride month 2: the reason you think ALL gays do this, is because the only ones you can say to yourself without doubt, "that person is gay" are those that dress flamboyantly, as for the millions of others that are on the subway with you and happy to "look straight" , where's their boas? retarded arguments here

Charles

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:06:41 -0500

Re: Poopaloop I think they should think about how theyre repeating history. First, prejudice against blacks. Now gays. Yeah, because prejudice against blacks is over and everyone has moved on. America can only hate one group at a time. Whatever. And gays aren't bigots, oh no. I get so tired of the idea that some people have that if gays could just get married, we could just shut the gay rights movement down. It's corny (and this is coming from a gay man).

mh

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:03:43 -0500

I haven't read anywhere in history about gay people being dragged from the back of a pick up truck. Where are there seperate water fountains for gay people. I haven't seen any gay people being hung from a tree. Or laws that made it legal to lynch gay people. I don't see any black people hiding in a closet. I think you should think about what you are repeating. Gay people are having the problem with legalizing their union because people like you THINK the arguments are the same. The black civil rights and gay rights are as different as night and day.

Andy

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:01:26 -0500

The ruling consistantly sites child advocacy as the prevailing reason against gay marriage. What the court has said is: Marriage is NOT about love. Marriage is for breeding.

JOJ

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:54:28 -0500

I think there would be less prejudice against gays if they stopped wearing g-string thongs and shaking their asses with boa feathers everytime they go out. Also marriage is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. It's the same thing as defining the sun as the color yellow. now gays say the sun is blue should we change the definition? I mean, I'm all for gay rights but don't call it marriage. Give them the same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage. Gay Unions sounds better.

Count Iblis

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:51:45 -0500

Gay marriage is not a threat to marriage, it's only a threat to intolerant religious extremists. It should be recognized that gay marriage is a controversial subject just like equal right for women once was here and still is in many parts of the world.

Count Iblis

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:50:11 -0500

ace

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:45:44 -0500

The mayor's not going anywhere. He's a lying fag.

Mike B.

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:38:24 -0500

I certainly agree in principle that legislation is a more socially acceptable way to effect changes like this. Where's the legislation? Where is it? Other state courts have stepped up to the plate here because legislators (except in California) have chosen to pander to their constituents who are indifferent or hostile to gay rights--it's simply too great a hurdle, and will be for many years to come. In any event, the majority here actually argued that no one is being discriminated against because everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so unserious a claim that I can't picture anyone actually saying it without a smirk on his face. I could strangle Pataki for putting these assholes on the court.

Poopaloop

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:24:59 -0500

I think they should think about how theyre repeating history. First, prejudice against blacks. Now gays. fuck

solidago

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:58:40 -0500

P.S. -- When's the trip to Albany? I'm in.

solidago

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:55:29 -0500

This is a victory for the cause. The rallying cry of the conservatives who propoposed the constitutional amendment was that it was needed to counter the "activist judges" who ignore the will of the people. If the ruling went the other way it would have been another fag for their fire. So many problems are caused when there is a perception that the courts are making policy. Compare the aftermath of Roe v. Wade to how abortion was legalized in European countries (via the legislature), or what happened in Massachusetts with their court's ruling on gay marriage. Gay marriage needs to be legalized in New York, but it should be done through the legislature.