New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

[Sam Spade]

I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't  want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this.

I suspect the full faith and credit clause argument is a dead argument based on precedent.  Equal protection always struck me as the stronger route - through sex discrimination.

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage.  As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman.  And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge.

I personally don't think its the smart move.  Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all.  This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters.

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage.  As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman.  And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge.

I personally don't think its the smart move.  Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all.  This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters.

The problem is in the State Sneate.  It clearly has enough votes in the assembly and passed last year 85-61.  Since then it has been stalled in the Senate where Majority leader Joe Bruno has refused to bring the bill up for a vote.

85-61 passage in the assembly means that its going to need more than the Senate changing parties to pass, which is kind of my point, although Bruno is definitely holding it up.

[Sam Spade]

This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy!

Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity;

Funny definition of "unbiased" there.

Yea, the "intolerance" on this thread is interesting, not to mention highly amusing.