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)
Homosexuals In Advertising Were Not Entirely Absent From Super Bowl Sunday (30)
· sal(the original) says: @Thomsen: why was it the norm to put a certain view of the black person in... »
· sal(the original) says: @Thomsen: a “stereotypye” that’s ok when we are a joke but... »
· Thomsen says: It was a funny premise, but to see that some people take this way too seriously.... »
3 Rhode Island Gubernatorial Candidates Will Commit to Gay Marriage. OK, Then What? (2)
· Sam says: You know what would be awesome? If Queerty EVER did any research on the topics they write... »
Carrie Prejean’s Engagement Sets the Stage for Opposite Marriage Ceremony (9)
· Brian NJ says: He must be as big a douchebag as she is. »
Can Their Indie Gay Party Newsletter Take On Next? (67)
· michael S. says: those homos have an article in the current TheAdvocate magazine... »
Why Is White Collar’s Matthew Bomer’s Sexuality Such a Secret? (197)
· damendo says: Look, I completely understand Matt B. He grew up in a relatively small town in Texas,... »
Lt. Dan Choi Has Been Called … Back to Service? (4)
· DR says: Well, now, an interesting development to say the least… »
“It’s up to us to define what must happen next, what will happen next. Whose calling is that if not ours? An agenda? Yes, I have an agenda” (1)
· Brian NJ says: Finally, a gay rights leader with a pair; being tough and getting respect. Maybe they... »
“2010 has the potential to see even more achievements for this community than at any other time” (10)
· Brian NJ says: Joe is the ugly girl who only gets invited to a party on the condition they bring a... »
Shouldn't that illustration read "polygamy" since there are multiple wives? I'm pretty sure the "bi" in "bigamy" means "two".
Just sayin
Polygamy and incest are approved of in the Bible. That book is a joke where the law is concerned.
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/.....8opn09.pdf
Thanks New York!