CommunityPam's House Blend

New York: Appeals court rules state must recognize same-sex Canadian marriages

(UPDATE: The Freepi are in a tizzy, the freak-out is after the jump).

Woo hoo, what great news to cap off the week! My marriage is legal somewhere in the U.S. (Newsday):

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge’s ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee’s lesbian partner.

Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005, arguing that it granted benefits to heterosexual married couples but denied them to Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden.

The couple formalized their relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001 and were married in Canada in 2004.

The ACLU has issued a press release on the case; the reversal was unanimous:

In a unanimous decision, a New York appellate court today ruled that marriages of same-sex couples entered into outside of New York must be recognized. The case, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, is the first appellate court decision in the state and the first known decision in the country to hold that a valid same-sex marriage must be recognized here.

“This is a victory for families, it’s a victory for fairness and it’s a victory for human rights,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. “Congratulations to all same-sex couples validly married outside of New York State: You are now considered married in New York as well.   Now we need to work toward a New York where you don’t have to cross state or country lines to get married.”

…”If a marriage is valid in the state or country in which the marriage took place, New York law generally requires the recognition of that marriage,” said Arthur Eisenberg, the NYCLU’s legal director. “This case involved a straightforward application of that principle.”

…”Today’s decision is a great step forward for same-sex couples in New York,” said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project of the ACLU.  “But there is still lots of work to be done here.  It’s now up to the state legislature to finish the job it started last year and pass the marriage bill so that lesbian and gay New Yorkers won’t have to leave the state to celebrate their commitments.”  


Actual Freeper Quotes

Yo Canada, keep your freaks you marry up there and this won’t be a problem.

I am gonna be sick.

John McCain in his Vanity Fair interview last year, SPECIFICALLY STATED he did not care if homosexual based marriage was legal. Remember this on Tuesday. Of course the MSM will not report this until WEDNESDAY.

Except there are states they can get married in also. This court has actually decreed same sex marriage by judicial activism. Those who think we don’t need a constitutional amendment are just wrong. We have out of control courts.

And if Canada decides the value of pi is only 3, we should adopt that convention as well? If gay people choose to be domestic partners, fine. But simply call it something else, and let the new word earn its own place of honor in society.

When nut cases like these arise, I wish they could be heard in a special court and under sharia law.

It’s always the taxpayer’s money that get’s spent on these rulings. Isn’t it? Let’s see about $1000 a month for the next 20 or thirty years. Even if they divorce! If it’s like California all public employee health care plans are top $$$. IMHO it’s a quid pro quo between the politicians and the insurance companies. 14 posted on 02/01/2008 5:33:46 PM PST by 386wt (Be free and don’t die!)

Is everyone here still willing to sit out this Nov. to teach the party a lesson? We did that in ’06. Only difference this tIme, the Dems. will have carte blanche from the WH down. I am watching in full color, the death of my nation and it makes me physically ill.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME IN HISTORY TO TEACH THE PARTY A LESSON. THIS IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OLD. WE ARE NOW FIGHTING GOD-LESS SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

I would like to see a constitutional amendment concerning the definition of marriage for two reasons. First, because it evidently needs defining if the courts can’t quite comprehend this topic. And second, this social engineering by ultraliberals in academia and the judiciary is not going to slow down or stop until the vast majority makes it clear by dint of constitutional amendments that we have had enough of this nonsense and will amend the document every time in the future that their peculiar initiatives and rulings upset us. Call it the tyranny of the majority if you will, but it sure beats the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the judiciary we have at work right now tearing down this great nation.

Previous post

Bush has failed to keep the country safe on another front

Next post

Late Late Nite FDL: Applecore

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding

30 Comments