Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
affirmations

Gay Couples Not the Same as Incestuous Couples!, Declares New York’s Top Court

biginclg

In rejecting the Alliance Defense Fund’s argument that same-sex marriage was the same thing as incest and polygamy, New York State’s Court of Appeals all but declared gays are entitled to marriage rights. But they didn’t go that far!

The 4-3 decision negated ADF’s claim that government benefits provided to legally married gay couples — from other states, since NY doesn’t allow it yet — somehow violated some made up law in their heads. (Technically, the law pertained to New York’s “exceptions” clause, which allows the state to deny benefits to marriages performed elsewhere but considered invalid in the state, such as incestuous marriages.) But the justices, who sit on the state’s highest bench, ruled only on the very specific issue of government benefits, not marriage itself. AP: “The defendants had argued that a state rule recognizing common law marriages meant that same-sex unions performed elsewhere should be recognized in New York. The court said in its decision that it didn’t have to consider that argument because of the narrowness of the case, pertaining only to certain benefits, but said it hoped the Legislature would address the question.”

Haha. Us too!

(Illustration: dhonig)

By:           editor editor
On:           Nov 19, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 3 Comments
    • ptp
      ptp

      Shouldn’t that illustration read “polygamy” since there are multiple wives? I’m pretty sure the “bi” in “bigamy” means “two”.

      Just sayin

      Nov 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      Polygamy and incest are approved of in the Bible. That book is a joke where the law is concerned.

      Nov 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      Hey guys/gals, I only recently became a Queerty regular, love the site, and have been posting comments on several articles.

      Here in the particular case, your article contains a HUGE BIG FAT ERROR! I suspect that you just relied on the Associated Press’ report about the NY decision. The wire report is in error!!!!! The Court of Appeal decision was 7-0 in our favor!!! The court opinion was written by Judge Pigott, concurred by Judges Graffelo, Read and Smith. In a separate concurring opinion by Judge Ciparick that was joined by Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Jones.

      That means the decision was 7-0. This is a big distinction because 4-3 sends the message that the decision was closely divided when in fact it was unanimous. Indeed, the concurring opinion by Judge Ciparick was that the majority did not go far enough to establish recognition of same-sex marriage under New York’s marriage recognition statue.

      Read the decision and concurring decision here:

      http://www.courts.state.ny.us/CTAPPS/decisions/2009/nov09/147-148opn09.pdf

      Thanks New York!

      Nov 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.