Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 679

Thread: Gay Marriage

  1. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan
    Don't expect good news.
    I don't. Here's today's lineup:

    Chief Judge Judith Kaye -- appointed by Cuomo
    Judge George Bundy -- appointed by Cuomo
    Judge Carmen Ciparick -- appointed by Cuomo
    Judge Victoria Graffeo -- appointed by Pataki
    Judge Susan Read -- appointed by Pataki
    Judge Robert Smith -- appointed by Pataki

    The court's seventh judge, Albert Rosenblatt, a Pataki appointee, has recused himself from hearing these appeals because, according to his daughter, she has been a pro- same-sex union advocate in cases outside New York.

  2. #152

    Default

    June 1, 2006
    Highest Court in New York Confronts Gay Marriage
    By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

    ALBANY, May 31 — As the issue of gay marriage finally reached New York State's highest court on Wednesday, the six judges who heard the passionate arguments from both sides put forth a fundamental question: Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?

    During the two and a half hours of oral argument, the judges on the Court of Appeals grappled with essential questions of social values, asking tough questions without tipping their hands as to their ultimate decision.

    They wanted to know whether there were studies showing that children raised by mothers and fathers turned out better than those raised by same-sex couples, and they wanted to know whether opening the door to gay marriage would also open the door to bigamy or polygamy.

    They wanted to know whether asking the courts to rewrite New York State's marriage laws was a way of letting the State Legislature escape responsibility for taking a position on a social controversy.

    The case before the court was a challenge to New York State's marriage laws, filed by 44 same-sex couples. Their lawyers argued that marriage was a fundamental right, and compared laws assuming marriage to be a union of a man and a woman to the laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

    Lawyers defending the marriage laws argued that even if the institution had evolved, it was the job of the Legislature — not the courts — to change them.

    The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the court merely had to change the gender-based language of the current law, which refers to "husband" and "wife," to something neutral, like "spouse." If the court agreed to legalize same-sex marriages, New York would become only the second state, after Massachusetts, to do so.

    The judges' questions pointed to the precedent-setting nature of the debate. "Isn't this the only one where you have literally the whole history of Western civilization against you?" asked Judge Robert S. Smith of the state's domestic relations law. "That does go back right to the dawn of civilization."

    After first citing traditional views of marriage, Judge Smith then asked whether the time was ripe for the courts to approve same-sex marriage. Judge Smith also wondered whether the issue of same-sex marriage deserved special attention because of the history of discrimination against gay people.

    "Aren't homosexuals about the classic example of people who have been abused and discriminated against," and who therefore need the protection of the courts? he asked.

    Peter H. Schiff, senior counsel to the state attorney general, said there was no urgent need to change the law, and pointed out that same-sex couples accounted for only 1.3 percent of all households in New York State, a "very small" number.

    "I don't think anybody 100 years ago was thinking about this issue," Mr. Schiff said. "It wasn't on the radar screen."

    The main lawsuit in this case was filed by a gay and lesbian rights group, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, on behalf of five same-sex New York City couples against the city clerk, Victor L. Robles, who issues marriage licenses.

    In New York, the legal dispute over same-sex marriage goes back two years. In February 2005, a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan found that state marriage law violated the State Constitution. That decision was overturned last December by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, which said it was up to the Legislature to change the law.

    In yesterday's hearing, the New York City plaintiffs were joined by three other groups of plaintiffs from across the state. New York City's lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said yesterday that even in its own case law, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the reason for marriage as "the begetting of offspring," not, as the plaintiffs argued, as the sanctioning of a loving and committed union between two people.

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said that New York City is appealing the case to clarify the issue, and that he supports legislative change.

    Roberta A. Kaplan, arguing for same-sex marriage on behalf of 12 of the couples across the state, said there were 46,000 families with children headed by same-sex couples in New York State, and that they could not wait until their children were grown for the law to change.

    The seventh judge on the Court of Appeals, Albert M. Rosenblatt, removed himself from the case. His daughter, a lawyer, has argued on behalf of advocates for same-sex marriage in California. Judge Rosenblatt has been perceived as a swing vote in many cases. A spokesman for the court said that in the event of a 3-3 tie, another judge could be brought in. He said a tie had occurred only once in the last 20 years or so.

    Judge Victoria A. Graffeo asked whether, under the plaintiffs' argument, the Legislature should afford more rights and benefits to other types of family arrangements, such as two sisters raising children. "Was the Legislature denying them due process or equal protection?" she asked.

    Judge George Bundy Smith asked what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage had been in Massachusetts.

    "Basically nothing," Ms. Kaplan replied. "There is not a breakdown of civil society in Massachusetts and there certainly isn't a breakdown of marriage."

    Judge Bundy Smith also asked why gay couples were not satisfied with civil unions — a remedy that the plaintiffs argued would make them second-class citizens.

    Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said the court would have to decide the constitutional questions, "whether we do it frontally or whether we do it in some more subversive way," like changing language about gender.

    To which Terence Kindlon, a lawyer for same-sex couples in Albany, replied, "Subversive is one of the words I've liked all my life, your honor."

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

  3. #153
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    CNN: Bush moves gay marriage press conference to less prominent location

    RAW STORY
    June 5, 2006

    President Bush unexpectedly yanked a press event on the Federal Marriage Amendment from the White House Rose Garden and placed it inside the Old Executive Office Building without explanation, CNN reported Monday.

    After giving a prepared statement, the President did not take any questions, and instead walked off the podium. RAW STORY will be posting a video of the conference shortly.

    In other gay marriage news, MSNBC's conservative host Joe Scarborough said Monday that most conservatives "know" Bush is "pandering" on gay marriage (Video here). The amendment does not have enough votes to pass the Senate.

  4. #154
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    VIDEO: Inhofe ‘Very Proud’ There’s Never Been a Homosexual Relationship in the ‘Recorded History of Our Family’

    ThinkProgress
    June 6, 2006

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/...-gay-marriage/

    This afternoon on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) stood before a large photograph of his family and shared this important fact: “I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”

    Watch it:




    INHOFE: As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.
    (HT: Atrios and AmericaBlog)

    Inhofe is consistent in his professional life. His office says “he does not hire openly gay staffers ‘due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda.’”

    COMMENTS:
    I’m positive I read somewhere a few years ago that Inhofe was considered the dumbest member of the US Senate, and that’s saying something. to wit: http://buffaloreport.com/2004/040511.jackson.dumb.html
    Comment by Badmoodman — June 6, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

  5. #155
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Well, he is a handsome idiot, so I guess that is all his electorate needs!


  6. #156
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Jon Stewart hammers Bill Bennett

    Crooks and Liars
    June 7, 2006

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614



    I shouldn't be surprised anymore when I see Jon Stewart take a conservative ideologue to the woodshed because he does it every time when he tries. Bill Bennett is the latest one to get played by Stewart. The topic is gay marriage and once again Jon gets the better of a conservative pundit.

    Video-WMP Video-QT (not the whole segment)


    (rough transcript)
    Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

    Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families...

    Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

    Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

    Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.

    Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

    Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
    Wasn't that a basic yet perfectly thought out idea? It goes downhill for Bennett from there.

    I think for most of us-we're so used to these right wing talking heads debating against lame duck liberals on television that always get bull dozed by personalities such as Bennett; we are then amazed how effortlessly Stewart handles these guys. Jon always boils the debate down to it's simplest form which usually causes people like Bennett to look foolish. It doesn't say much for the class of pundits representing Democratic values when Stewart so easily defeats them.


    © 2006

  7. #157
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    I recorded that last night. I only got through the opening bit on the bus this morning. I am looking forward to the rest!

  8. #158
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Heh. Commenting on the part you put there, I agree.

    Stewart is hard to argue with because he will agree with things that other people will not. It is had for anyone to insult him because he just comes out and says "That's great, I am sitting here on a basic cable parody of a news show and you can't answer MY questions? I mean, we are NOTHING here, what are you worried about?"

    Etc etc. The best was when he ripped on Hannity and Combs. ow-tie boy started ripping into him and his reply was "I am on a late night comedy show on basic cable, you are on a news show on one of the most widely known cable news network in the world, why can't you report the news" (Or something of the like).

    The thing about John and the Daily Show is that they really do not have a bunch of investors/advertisers that tehy are worried about scaring off with a subject or topic that is covered. If John ever goes Network, it will be muted just like a Light Beer. Half the taste, Half the Punch, but Half the Calories!!!!



    I hope it does not come to that, and I hope he also does not go Bill Mahyr (Politically incorrect) and get so full of himself that he starts yelling at everyone.....

  9. #159
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    Well, he is a handsome idiot, so I guess that is all his electorate needs!
    ? ick. You've got some kind of bigot-daddy thing?

  10. #160
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Senate Shoots Down Gay Marriage Amendment

    NY1
    June 07, 2006

    An expected win in Washington for gay marriage supporters as a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex unions was shot down in the senate on Wednesday.

    Opponents called the ban discrimination and apparently enough lawmakers agreed.

    The hotly contested amendment tried to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, but it fell 11 votes short of the 60 it needed to pass.

    On the Senate floor this week, politicians from both sides of the aisle got a chance to weigh in on the controversial topic.

    "We simply cannot strip marriage of its core – that it's a union between a man and a woman," said Arizona Republican Jon Kyl.

    "This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second class citizens of this country," argued Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold.

    Both President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist backed the legislation.

    Copyright © 2006 NY1 News.

  11. #161

    Default

    Maybe I'm being over-cynical here, but since this proposed amendment was pretty much doomed from the start, maybe the proposal was ment to fail. All it was was an excellent grandstand opportunity for the right-wing conservatives to generate more support among their core voters.

    It does feel good to live in a place where the debate is more about changing the civil unions availible(sp?) for gays into marriages. i.e. change the law to be gender-neutral.
    Last edited by Swede; June 7th, 2006 at 12:52 PM.

  12. #162
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan
    ? ick. You've got some kind of bigot-daddy thing?
    Nah, All I have seen of him i that one pic in the post there ryan.

    Most politicians are elected on what they present, not what they actually are or believe in. They are a frontman for the interests that got them in theer in the first place.

    He looks like a home-grown full blooded American stereotype. PERFECT for the heartland idiot electorate (not saying that the cities do not have their own idiotic electorate. Marrion Barry would be a good example of that group!).

    So him spouting off about Gay Marriage when only 5% of the people nationwide gives a rats arse about it is not surprising.

  13. #163
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swede
    Maybe I'm being over-cynical here, but since this proposed amendment was pretty much doomed from the start, maybe the proposal was ment to fail. All it was was an excellent grandstand opportunity for the right-wing conservatives to generate more support among their core voters.

    It does feel good to live in a place where the debate is more about changing the civil unions availible(sp?) for gays into marriages. i.e. change the law to be gender-neutral.
    DING!

    I was thinking the same thing.

    Time to get the rainmakers to get up and dance around so the people think something is being done about the drought.

  14. #164
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    I think it's pretty clear that this ammendment was more about the fall senatorial elections than about civil rights. I just love being a pr tool.

  15. #165
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan
    I think it's pretty clear that this ammendment was more about the fall senatorial elections than about civil rights. I just love being a pr tool.
    Huh huh huh.

    You said tool

    Huh huh.....

Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage
    By ryan in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 11th, 2006, 01:17 PM
  2. The perfect marriage of architecture and nature.
    By YesIsaidYesIwillYes in forum World Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 4th, 2004, 12:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software