Did I just hear the report on NPR correctly? New York State has just ruled that gay couples have a legal right to marry? Did anyone else hear this? Maybe I misheard it. I've googled but it's not turning up yet....

There's a story on 365gay.com, but that's all I can find anywhere, which seems really strange.

You DID hear right, here's the story.. In every sense of the expression, "Way to go!" :cool:

Note that in NY, the "Supreme Court," like this one, is NOT the final arbiter of NY law; that is called the Court of Appeals in NY. The intermediate appellate court, where this case will likely next go, unless the Court of Appeals "takes jurisdiction," is called the Appellate Division. And finally, check the interesting demographic breakdown of who voted her into office, particularly the large GOP following she had.

Super news for Super Bowl Weekend!*
_____
*Now if I could just leave work super-early! frown

[ February 04, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

And how quickly will this get overturned?

So since this case is against the City of New York, does that mean the decision to appeal would come from Elliott Spitzer?

Damn this is good news. I was so getting depressed about the state of things lately what with W2 and that Spelling be-eye-tch and stupid James Dobson. I could easily move to NY. I hope it sticks.

What worries me is how much movement will this give the FMA?

I thought about that but you know what, those red states are NEVER EVER going to get it, hell they still believe in slavery for christ sake so I'll take whatever we can get. I seriously doubt congress would be able to pass the FMA. Its all smoke and mirrors to keep the religious right voting for them. Same thing with abortion, they are never going to do away with it or what would those slutty bush twins do to get rid of thier drunken mistakes. All they truly care about is lining thier pockets (Halliburton). They have the christians hoodwinked as much as we are.

Illini, Spitzer is the NY STATE Atty. General; this decision would probably be made by what's called, I believe, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, i.e. the lawyer for NYC.

Gobar, I don't know a single person who believes in the virtues of slavery anywhere, let alone in all red states. I'll attribute your hype to Super Bowl Frenzy - and take this victory along with one by the Eagles!

Yeah, I was exaggerating a little although it stems from a post on another board I'm on that was from someone whose handle was "Good Old South" and was the most racist crap I've ever seen. Just got my blood pressure up is all. Hard to believe that kind of attitude still exists, and a shame. But my point is that we really can't wait till all of america feels we are ok cuz that will never happen. I think, like your man's "democracy", equality for gays is unstoppable. The truth will win out in the end. Mass, then NY then my own NJ maybe? My boyfriend will be scared cuz I'll be hounding him for a ring. Ha ha.

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to hope that the federal DOMA gets upheld just so that it can short circuit the Federal Marriage Amendment--thus allowing the breakthroughs like NY.

Why has it come to this :confused:

[ February 04, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if Clinton's DOMA saved us here in the blue states? Amazing how things work out.

The story has made the New York Times.

Actually, gobar was right, a Christian school in the South recently garnered notoriety when it became known that they were teaching history lessons in which they were extolling the virtues of slavery. There are more than a few pro-slavery and pro-Confederate advocates running around, including our last (worst?) Attorney General of the US, John Ashcroft.

Back to NYC, this is very exciting news, though it appears only to apply to New York City, which has over 8 million people alone, so it's like its own state...but why, if the ruling draws upon New York's constitution, would it then not apply to the entire state, as opposed only to New York City?

FT, there's a contrary ruling out of any Albany court, so this will definitely go up on appeal. That will be interesting to watch.

Sidebar: Ashcroft a "pro-slavery and pro-Confederate advocate?" Either, both, which??? Neither, I'd say, outside the context of perhaps acknowledging the history of the Confederacy as part of our overall history and not trying to rewrite it - or write it out, as the case may be.

Gobar, you're not that far off. I grew up in the Deep South and can attest to the fact that there are many bigoted and racist people there who would love to see the institution of slavery reinstated.
Although I disagree with Affirmative Action, based on my experiences as a kid, I can’t help but say it’s still sorely needed especially in that part of the country.

Meanwhile, back on topic, Mayor Bloomberg announced NYC will appeal this ruling.

Senseless drive-by linking:

City to Appeal Move Backing Gay Marriage

I don't get it. Why doesn't he just not appeal? In the words of Dana Rohrabacher, "he's in, he's out, he's in, he's out...." At least he took a stand. Maybe the Democrats should ask him to run for president as their candidate in 2008.

[ February 06, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Twin, if Bloomberg didn't appeal this, the conflict between the two trial court decisions pro and con would still remain and it would have to be resoved anyway. As he said in an earlier - non-gratuitous wink - link, that would cause confusion and the expense and duplication of effort that comes with it. Better to resolve it sooner rather than later.

BTW, there were a lot of lawyers, to be sure, in that HRC dinner crowd. They, at least, should have known better than to boo someone as supportive as Bloomberg has been. But that's "in your face politics," I guess. I've seen them quiet - more at sullen, actually - enough on other occasions, like when what few gay-friendly GOP officials exist address them at the few HRC dinners they're invited to. Perhaps it would have been a little more graceful and appropriate if they had shown similar restraint last night.

[ February 06, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Too many queers have misplaced priorites when it comes to the NYC mayor. They are more concerned with issues like the smoking ban, the crackdown on nightlife and the closing of bathouses and after hours clubs when they should be more concerned with issues like gay marriage, domestic partner benefits, housing for people with AIDS, gay bashing and so on. Too many in our "communtiy" Bloomberg and Giuliani are Nazi-esque when they are trying to make life a little bit better quality of life for all New Yorkers. Have they made some missteps? Sure. But if your biggest concern is not having a olace to get your dick sucked at 5am, it's time for a priority check. If we threw our collective political clout and focused it on issues tht really matter, like gay marriage, there is a much better chance it would have to be passed.

[ February 06, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: George_Eaglesfan ]

I saw Bloomberg's comments on CNN and they totally contradict. He's trying to make both sides happy, which you just can't. And he said there would be "chaos" if they didn't appeal it. Chaos seems a little extreme buddy.

I saw the clip on the news this morning of the reception Bloomberg got at the HRC event at the Waldorf last night, and it really embarrased me. First of all, I think his reasoning is quite logical. We wouldn't want Rosie O'Donnell to have yet ANOTHER marraige/publicity stunt be decalred invalid by a court after the fact . More importantly, Mayor Bloomberg has been a friend to the gay community here in NYC. I live in the gay ghetto here, and I serve on the Boards of three non-profits in Manhattan which 1) provide spportive housing (including drug counseling and vocational rehabilitation) to PWA's; 2) provide alternative education facilities to G/L teens who've been threatened and/or ostracized at their neighborhood schools so they get their high school diplomas; and 3) provide comprehensive health care services to G/L adults. Every single one of our facilities has had its burden eased just a bit the past few years by the incredible support the Bloomberg administration has provided - not only financially during a recession and budget crisis, but also by appointing commissioners who worked WITH us, listened to us, and scrambled to find or redirect resources in such ways that we didn't have to limit our services. No one person is perfect, and we will never all agree on every issue every time, but this is one man who has quietly done quite a lot of good in 3+ years in office. The cashmere intelligentsia that booed him last night is the same crowd that assumed the position for Clinton every time he picked their pockets during the 90's - a motley collection of homo has-beens and never-weres and their bought-and-paid-for 25 year-old trophy boys with skid marks on their Barney's charge cards. They should really be ashamed of themselves, and I'm ashamed to have them in our community.


<exhale> descending soapbox..........

[ February 06, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Well put, MM!

As predicted, NYC wants the state's highest court to rule on this ASAP, bypassing the intermediate Appellate Division. Whatever the result, I can't fault them for wanting to use the most expeditious and inexpensive route to do so. And I'd rather have NYC's Corporation Counsel riding herd over all the would-be intervenors than some county counsel from a jurisdiction less able to corral them all.

[ February 08, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

It is the responsibility of the executive branch of our governments to support the laws passed by the legislative branches, even if this means litigating to keep laws the people in the executive branch don't really believe in. Yes, there are laws that should be abandoned. But I don't think marriage laws are quite at the level of Jim Crow.

Tell that to my friend whose partner died suddenly from a heart attack last month. He is now facing a potential fight for the estate from a homophobic brother-in-law, unless the rest of the family (thankfully quite accepting) are able to talk him out of it.

Jim Crow laws were designed to maintain the fiction of the inferiority of people with a lot of melanin in their skin. Anti-gay laws, like the marriage ones, are being currently used to maintain the fiction of "straight is good, gay is bad." The anti-gay laws may no longer be as intrusive as the Jim Crow laws were, but you must remember that it took federal courts, and often the Supreme Court, to rule that gays had the rights to free speech, to free association, and to private lives.

Good point, CPT. Don't forget we were criminals in many states simply because we had sex in the privacy of our own homes until the Supreme Court struck those laws down just last year.

Not in NY, but similar story. A California judge has just ruled that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The judge wrote:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,"


Hmmm, common sense....

Excellent news! Here's a link.

I guess the old Domino theory might apply after all. Will we look back in 50 years and wonder what all the uproar was about?

KeyWestGuy, to answer your question: YES!

Any word on where this stands? What about Kalee-forn-ee-yah?

Last I saw was in California, the judge stayed his ruling, which means it's off to appeals.