NY Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down

[mactastic]

Link to Liberal Media (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6914743/)
A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.

Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that “delivers the state Constitution’s promise of equality to all New Yorkers.”

“The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law,” said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case. “Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they’re entitled to get them the same way straight couples do.”

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York’s trial level court.

Good enough reason to celebrate on a Friday!

[zimv20]

edit -- i read it wrong. i thought same-sex marriage was struck down, not the ban. oops!

and then i thought everyone was being really sarcastic...

[brap]

Not the kind of thing one expects to hear from the American legal system right now.

Of course,She’s an activist judge legislating from the bench.
Whose job is probably a lot less secure now.

[mactastic]

<shrugs> The judges who allowed blacks equal rights were so-called 'activist judges' too. Some people are on the right side of history, others aren't.

[IJ Reilly]

That "equal protection under the law" garbage will just have to go, if those activist judges keep deciding that it applies to everybody.

[Thomas Veil]

Beautiful...just beautiful! At last a piece of positive news.

[iGary]

I especially enjoyed how Bush, an idiot I unfortunately voted for, said he was going to "protect the institution of marriage" in this country.

I expect a sharp decline in the 50% divorce and 25% domestic abuse rates in this country. :D

And a sad institution it is. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

And a sad institution it is. :rolleyes:
Marriage or the Presidency?

[mactastic]

Seems like if Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage he could start by not allowing any homosexuals or divorcees in his administration.

[IJ Reilly]

Seems like if Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage he could start by not allowing any homosexuals or divorcees in his administration.

Who would that rule out? (not that it's any of my business).

[mactastic]

Who would that rule out? (not that it's any of my business).
Dunno... I have no idea if there are any openly gay members of his administration. But I'm pretty sure there must be a couple of divorcees amongst them. Odds are good anyway.

It just seems the principled thing to do if you are worried about the sanctity of marriage.

[Xtremehkr]

Meaningless until the SC sets a precedence. After the conservatives have had their period of influence, liberals are going to have a lot of work to do.

[iGary]

Marriage or the Presidency?

Both.

[mouchoir]

I especially enjoyed how Bush, an idiot I unfortunately voted for, said he was going to "protect the institution of marriage" in this country.

I expect a sharp decline in the 50% divorce and 25% domestic abuse rates in this country. :D

And a sad institution it is. :rolleyes:

that reminds me of an obi-wan quote that goes something like

'who is more the the fool? the fool, or the one that follows him?'

That is good news – nice to see something positive at last

[ColoJohnBoy]

How does one define 'activist judge'? I would say it is a judge who rules pursuant to a personal agenda without regard to the merits of a case or to the legal principles involved.

Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas: He dissented, but an activist judicial opinion nonetheless. The entire court in Bush v. Gore: Every single one voted along party lines when they should have rejected the case on grounds of jurisdiction.

After reading this particular judge's opinion ( http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf ), I'm pretty darn confident this wasn't an activist decision. Well-thought-out and in accordance with long-held legal principles.

P.S. Yay! :)