Paterson Win On Gay Rites Looks Likely

A New York Supreme Court judge seems poised to uphold Governor Paterson 's pro-gay marriage policies against an attack from a Christian legal group.

[Will]

No surprise here -- the lower courts and even some of the intermediate appellate courts in NY are very activist and so are biased in favor of gay marriage.

This issue needs to be resolved by the state high court, the NY Court of Appeals -- everything else is just prologue.

[Dale is a liar]

Dale wrote:

There is blah blah blah...

Liar.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Dale is a liar wrote:

<quoted text>
Liar.

Thats not dale.. its PETER!
And yes, PETER is a mess.

[Disgusted American]

Peter,Peter,Peter....the closeted ol'kock eater...how does your self-hatred grow?

[Rick in Kansas]

Will wrote:

No surprise here -- the lower courts and even some of the intermediate appellate courts in NY are very activist and so are biased in favor of gay marriage.
This issue needs to be resolved by the state high court, the NY Court of Appeals -- everything else is just prologue.

Actually Will, the NY Court of Appeals has already resolved the issue when they ruled in the Monroe County case that absent any law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions the exsisting law required their recognition. The current law only prohibits New York state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the law regarding marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would not be recognized is very specific and does not include a provision for same-sex couples. The ADF lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of the court's time and the taxpayers money, as the legislature has taken no action regarding changing out of state marriage recognition since the Court of Appeals ruling, meaning there is still no law prohibiting Patterson's actions. The ADF should be held liable for all costs including that of the state in having to defend what is by its very nature a frivolous lawsuit.

[syrmbo]

Poor Dale, obviously will never be in ANY kind of relationship straight or gay. At least we can be assured that his hatred and misguided sense of reality will not be passed on to future generations. My HUSBAND and i have been together for 14 years. we got married in Canada on May 26th, 2008 and live in Syracuse, NY. i cannot wait to have all the rights of the so-called normal married couples in this state. Dale PLEASE do the world a favor, put the gun to your head and get it over with.

[ScottyMatic]

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

<quoted text>Thats not dale.. its PETER!
And yes, PETER is a mess.

So is Peter his actual handle... I thought we all knew him as Wil... he of the cut-and-paste brigade.

[ScottyMatic]

Will wrote:

No surprise here -- the lower courts and even some of the intermediate appellate courts in NY are very activist and so are biased in favor of gay marriage.
This issue needs to be resolved by the state high court, the NY Court of Appeals -- everything else is just prologue.

Just to clarify... being anti-gay is bias.
Being pro-equal rights is called justice.

[Hello]

Dale wrote:

There is no logical relationship between marriage and anything homosexual. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

You are seriously misinformed. I can count opposite examples, like closed relationships lasting till death do them part, some of them over 50 years in duration. Countless, healthy, eldrely and the refutation goes on and on and on. Nothing you said is true.

[Hello]

There is no logical relationship between marriage and anything homosexual.

a quick answer, that makes sense.

Dale, clearly you had two heterosexuals as parents and look how you turned out, Obviously it is no predictor of mental health in children born to them.

[Tony C]

Dale wrote:

There is no logical

Reported for spamming.

[ScottyMatic]

Hello wrote:

There is no logical relationship between marriage and anything homosexual.
a quick answer, that makes sense.
Dale, clearly you had two heterosexuals as parents and look how you turned out, Obviously it is no predictor of mental health in children born to them.

Ha ha ha ha! Good one.

That's just Wil in Pekin Illinois. He posts this exact same text on every one of the forum threads.

Just click "report abuse," because he's not engaging the conversation, he's just spamming with hate speech.

Genuine paranoid delusional type. Being that far back in the closet and hating himself as much as he does has warped his small and fragile mind.

[Will]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Will, the NY Court of Appeals has already resolved the issue when they ruled in the Monroe County case that absent any law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions the exsisting law required their recognition. The current law only prohibits New York state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the law regarding marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would not be recognized is very specific and does not include a provision for same-sex couples. The ADF lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of the court's time and the taxpayers money, as the legislature has taken no action regarding changing out of state marriage recognition since the Court of Appeals ruling, meaning there is still no law prohibiting Patterson's actions. The ADF should be held liable for all costs including that of the state in having to defend what is by its very nature a frivolous lawsuit.

On February 1, 2008, the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, 1562 (CA 06-02591) entered its ruling in the Marinez v. Monroe County case, whereupon the Monroe County filed an appeal with THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, which is actually the highest court in the state.

Since it would be front-page news if THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS had actually heard and decided the appeal from the 2/1/08 lower appellate division court, please supply the date and citation that supports your claim that "the NY Court of Appeals has already resolved the issue when they ruled in the Monroe County case".

I suspect, however, that you have just fallen victim to the common misconception that the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division" is the "New York Court of Appeals".

[Rick in Kansas]

Not so fast Will, on February 28th, after the County had been handed a unanimous defeat by the Appellate Division on the issue of marriages performed and recognized in other jurisdictions being recognized in New York, they petitioned the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) for review and on May 6th, that petition was denied. In its order, the Court stated that since the remaining issues of fact had not been determined, any such appeal was premature. Even that being the case, having rejected the appeal of the Appellate Division decision, there is NO REQUIREMENT that the issue be revisited as to date there have been no rulings in any case that are contrary to the Fourth Department's ruling...

[Will]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Not so fast Will, on February 28th, after the County had been handed a unanimous defeat by the Appellate Division on the issue of marriages performed and recognized in other jurisdictions being recognized in New York, they petitioned the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) for review and on May 6th, that petition was denied. In its order, the Court stated that since the remaining issues of fact had not been determined, any such appeal was premature. Even that being the case, having rejected the appeal of the Appellate Division decision, there is NO REQUIREMENT that the issue be revisited as to date there have been no rulings in any case that are contrary to the Fourth Department's ruling...

LOL...which is your weasly way of agreeing with me that the New York Court of Appeals has not yet decided the merits of the Martinez v. Monroe County case.

[Rick in Kansas]

I'll admit that I was inaccurate as to the source of the determination that the marriages were to be recognized absent any law that they not be, but I did say that the Court of Appeals had settled the issue of the recognition of marriages recognized by other jurisdictions. Having rejected the appeal by Monroe County of the appellate division decision that made that ruling, that ruling now has the effect of law. I may have been wrong on part of the facts, but you were wrong on the what those facts actually mean. LOL...

[Will]

The New York Court of Appeals has NOT yet determined the merits of the issues in the case of Martinez v. Monroe County.

[Rick in Kansas]

But they have validated the ruling of the Appellate Division that marriages between same sex couples performed in jurisdictions other than New York are to be recognized by the state absent legislation stating otherwise in rejecting the appeal of Monroe County of that ruling. As long as that ruling by the Appellate Division remains in effect, Patterson has no worries from the ADF and you remain wrong... Besides, when Monroe County loses in the Supreme Court and the Appellate decision pretty much asurres that it will, not even the Court of Appeals has to revisit the issue of whether such marriages are to be recognized, that issue already having been decided...

[Will]

The New York Court of the Appeals has "validated" NOTHING regarding the Appellate Division ruling because the high court has not determined the merits of the issues in the case of Martinez v. Monroe County.

[Rick in Kansas]

That does not matter, the ONLY issue before the Appellate Division in the case of Martinez v. County of Monroe was whether or not the marriage in question was in fact recognized by the state of New York, the Court of Appeals rejection of the appeal of that ruling effectively settles that matter. That ruling makes the finding that Monroe County was unfairly denying benefits all but inevitable and as you have yet been unable to refute, no court is required to visit that central issue.