Comments on: Gay Couples Not the Same as Incestuous Couples!, Declares New York’s Top Court http://www.queerty.com/gay-couples-not-the-same-as-incestuous-couples-declares-new-yorks-top-court-20091119/ Free of an agenda. Except that gay one. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:54:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike in Brooklyn http://www.queerty.com/gay-couples-not-the-same-as-incestuous-couples-declares-new-yorks-top-court-20091119/#comment-238224 Mike in Brooklyn Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:28:44 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=75140#comment-238224 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! 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!

]]> By: Attmay http://www.queerty.com/gay-couples-not-the-same-as-incestuous-couples-declares-new-yorks-top-court-20091119/#comment-238202 Attmay Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:12:42 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=75140#comment-238202 Polygamy and incest are approved of in the Bible. That book is a joke where the law is concerned. Polygamy and incest are approved of in the Bible. That book is a joke where the law is concerned.

]]> By: ptp http://www.queerty.com/gay-couples-not-the-same-as-incestuous-couples-declares-new-yorks-top-court-20091119/#comment-238194 ptp Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:49:31 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=75140#comment-238194 Shouldn't that illustration read "polygamy" since there are multiple wives? I'm pretty sure the "bi" in "bigamy" means "two". Just sayin Shouldn’t that illustration read “polygamy” since there are multiple wives? I’m pretty sure the “bi” in “bigamy” means “two”.

Just sayin

]]>