Setback in NY
New York’s court of last resort has decided that marriage discrimination does not violate the state constitution. This is a shame, but not unexpected, and it leaves the issue in the hands of the elected officials.
Specifically, it will leave the issue in the hands of Elliot Spitzer, the favored candidate in the race for the governorship. He’s a solid Democrat and has said he will push for an end to marriage discrimination if he wins. As Attorney General, his record on the issue consists of just one decision: he stopped some New York mayors from following Gavin Newsom’s lead and handing out marriage licenses to gay couples.
Spitzer’s Republican opponent supports marriage discrimination, so this promises to become a campaign issue. Should be interesting.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Marriage discrimination is wrong!
I’ve had my eye on a sheep out on the back 40. I think I’d really like to marry her….
The slippery slope people talk about isn’t beginning now. It began 30 or so years ago with the “no fault” divorce. Like I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with gay people, but the concept of marriage is a religious one.
Civil unions, even in the form of J-P ceremonies, no problemo.
But marriage discrimination? Where is the logical end point to it? Now? Once gays have the right to marry? I’m sure NAMBLA will have something to say about that. Polygamy? It’s a good a qualifier as gay marriage, and it’s heterosexual to boot.
I’m not getting any warm fuzzies from the direction marriage is going.
Speaking of warm and fuzzy…
“Come over here, fluffy, it’s not so baaaaad….”
July 6th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Ah crap, my faux “serious” “/serious” tags didn’t come through. Guess we’ll have to figure out which is which. =P
July 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
What is wrong with the state legislature passing a law to make queer marriage legal/not legal? That’s the legislature’s job. It’s not for judges to make law.
It would be best if the state got entirely out of the marriage biz in the first place.