Circa Pict. & Prod. Co. Intnl Inc. (fka CPPD)

[beeboymama]

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20050205/(spirit)/(spirit)1.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaymarry5feb05,1,4213064.story?coll=la-headline...
THE NATION
N.Y. Ban on Gay Marriage Annulled

Times Headlines

Bush Says Private Accounts Are a Part of the Solution


Astronomers Observe Relative Hot Spot on Saturn Polar Cap


Greenhouse Gases May Stimulate Life on Mars


He's Fought for His Views, Now His Job


N.Y. Ban on Gay Marriage Annulled


more >


Most E-mailed

Workers Say Lender Ran 'Boiler Rooms'


A Whistle-Blower's Inside View of the Homeland Security Nominee


A Suicidal Selection


> more e-mailed stories








THE NATION

COURT RULINGS

NEW YORK STATE

MARRIAGES

NEW YORK STATE HOMOSEXUALS MARRIAGES COURT RULIN

HOMOSEXUALS











By Josh Getlin, Times Staff Writer


NEW YORK — A New York judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional Friday, paving the way for five same-sex couples to wed and opening the door to a contentious battle over the issue in the Empire State.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, however, stayed her ruling for 30 days — expecting that there would be appeals. The Supreme Court is New York's trial-level court.







The lawsuit, filed last year in New York City, challenged the state law regulating marriage; several previous challenges failed and are awaiting action from appellate courts.

"Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love," Ling-Cohan wrote in a 62-page opinion. "Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."

Gay and heterosexual couples, she said, "are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone."

The New York City Law Department, which argued in the case that granting same-sex marriage licenses violated the state constitution, said in a statement Friday: "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."

Opponents of same-sex marriage criticized the ruling as misguided, predicting a court battle and potential action by the state Legislature to prevent gay unions.

"I believe it is inconsistent with logic and reason," said state Sen. Serphin R. Maltese, a Queens Republican who has introduced a bill to ban gay marriage.

In a statement on his website, Maltese said the ruling ignored "our Founding Fathers' intention that marriage be an institution between a man and a woman."

Last year, New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer issued an opinion that state law banned same-sex marriages; however, he said the law raised "important constitutional questions" and could be subject to legal challenge. Spitzer also said same-sex marriage licenses granted in other states should be recognized in New York.

Friday's ruling — which for now applies only to New York City — is expected to be appealed to the state appellate court. The case then could make its way to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. Resolution could be months, if not years, away. If the decision is upheld at that level, it could apply statewide.

Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a national gay advocacy group, hailed Ling-Cohan's decision as a "historic ruling that delivers the state constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers," said Susan Sommer, Lambda's lead attorney in the case.

At a news conference in New York, one of the couples who challenged the law — Jo-Ann Shain and Mary Jo Kennedy — said the ruling gave them stronger legal rights. The two, who have been together for 23 years, have a 15-year-old daughter.

"I'm going to sleep better with the legal protection of a marriage," Kennedy said, adding that she hoped to get a marriage license with Shain as quickly as possible.

The New York ruling follows a Massachusetts high court decision last year that that state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Sommer said Lambda had filed similar litigation challenging laws in New Jersey, and had joined with other organizations to file appeals of laws in California and Washington. Decisions are pending in the California and New Jersey cases, and the Washington state Supreme Court will hear arguments March 8, Sommer said.

"We hope for a similar ruling any day now … in the California litigation," said Molly McKay, Northern California associate executive director for Equality California, in praising the New York decision.

The group, McKay added, "hopes to end marriage discrimination in both the courts and the Legislature this year."


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options



Ads by Google
Spitzer for NY Governor
Good Guys CAN Finish First. Sign up Now to Join the Fight!
www

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/277894p-238087c.html
Gay marriage, New York-style










New York was thrust to the forefront of the national battle over same-sex marriage when a Manhattan Supreme Court justice yesterday ruled the state Constitution affords gays the right to wed. The decision challenges Gov. Pataki and legislative leaders to express the will of the people on the matter.
Justice Doris Ling-Cohan's decision was as predictable as the dawn. Legal experts have said for almost a year that New York's courts would reach such a conclusion. Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver failed to do much of anything, let alone reach a consensus. But now they must.

Determining the nature of society's fundamental family unit belongs with elected officials, not with a trial court judge or a clutch of appellate jurists. That's why so many reacted so strongly after Massachusetts' high court legalized gay marriage there. The results included a stampede of laws against same-sex unions, a boost to President Bush's reelection and his continuing commitment to amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. It is fervently hoped that Ling-Cohan's finding will not add steam to Bush's misguided drive.

Like the country, New York is divided over gay marriage. Three earlier court cases reached a conclusion opposite Ling-Cohan's, finding the state did not have to extend to gays the right to marry. In the not-too-distant future, the whole shooting match will land in the Court of Appeals, the state's top bench. There, gay marriage will get an up or down vote, with no possibility of finding middle ground.

Marriage entails the vesting of important legal rights, such as joint ownership of property and inheritance. The 2000 census counted same-sex partners in more than 46,000 households in New York, with 34% of the lesbian couples and 21% of the gay couples raising children. Granting them the rights of marriage without the name of marriage, as happens in civil unions, is the proper way to go, but can be accomplished only legislatively. Elected officials should change the law before the courts go one step too far.

You do the crime ...

The City Bar Association has put forth the logic-defying notion that New York State is depriving incarcerated felons of their right to vote based on their race. Pardon us, but incarcerated felons are denied their right to vote because they committed serious crimes that required them to be removed from society.

The group makes its baffling assertion in papers filed on behalf of one Jalil Abdul Muntaqim, aka Anthony Bottom, a Black Liberation Army terrorist found guilty of killing two city cops in 1971. His lawyers say the state discriminates against minorities because they are sent to prison in greater proportion than whites and routinely get more severe sentences. Some might say that is a legal argument worth making. But the bar association, in its amicus brief, takes a leap from the rational to the ridiculous. It argues that because most felons are black or Hispanic, preventing them from voting is by definition a denial based on race. Following that line of reasoning, they might as well argue that locking up a felon for any crime - murder, rape, armed robbery - is a civil rights violation.

Losing the right to participate in civic life is a basic and proper punishment for committing a serious crime. And despite what the bar association says, felons go to prison because of what they did, not what they look like. In any case, after they pay their debt to society - completing their sentence and satisfying the terms of their parole - they automatically get back their right to vote. All they have to do is register, like every other voter.

Until that time, though, prisoners don't even have the right to walk down the street. Neither should they have the right to vote. Muntaqim's case comes up before the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in April. The judges should reject this argument out of hand.

Actor and activist

Ossie Davis lived a fine long life, most of it as a passionate and indefatigable champion of progressive social ideals. Publicly and privately, onstage and off, with wife and partner Ruby Dee always at his side, he dedicated himself to crusading against injustices, racial and otherwise. He was a man of towering stature, not only among showfolk but in many other sectors of the human community - a genuine New York treasure, as his eulogists will surely call him.


You can e-mail the Daily News editors at [e-mail]. Please include your full name, address and phone number. The Daily News reserves the right to edit letters. The shorter the letter, the better the chance it will be used.

Originally published on February 5, 2005



Have stories like this emailed to you FREE every day!

Email this story

Printer-friendly version










LEFT