New York moving along the marriage path

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

A New York state judge in Manhattan ruled today that denying gay couples licenses to marry violates the State Constitution, and she ordered the city to begin issuing licenses in March unless a higher court intervened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/ny...-marriage.html

Interesting fact of the case: one of the plaintiffs is the son of an interracial couple that moved to California in 1966 when California was the only state whose courts had declared laws prohibiting interracial marriage to be unconstitutional.

[RACooper]

Well I'm sure that you are watching (or should be) the debate about Same-Sex Marriage here in Canada... was presented to Parliment; but as a minority government under hostile opposition from the right and church groups...

While the government may have under cut the primary opposition arguement by framing the law in civil rights terms, that do not violate the freedom of religon (ie. no religous group must preform a same-sex marriage if it violates their religous principles) there is still strong opposition from the right... which is losing them support for their tatics of targeting people by religion or ethnic gorup (nevermind the finacial support from the states).

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by RACooper
Well I'm sure that you are watching (or should be) the debate about Same-Sex Marriage here in Canada... was presented to Parliment; but as a minority government under hostile opposition from the right and church groups...

While the government may have under cut the primary opposition arguement by framing the law in civil rights terms, that do not violate the freedom of religon (ie. no religous group must preform a same-sex marriage if it violates their religous principles) there is still strong opposition from the right... which is losing them support for their tatics of targeting people by religion or ethnic gorup (nevermind the finacial support from the states).

Did you see Harper's address to the Sikh community?

He claimed that same-sex marriage would threaten multiculturalism. The man is nuts. And quite frankly I feel he is the only threat to Canada.
/rant

i still don't udnerstand why they had to put it in writing that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages? Religious institutions are currently not compelled to perform heterosexual unions. They can and DO refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples all the time for any number of reasons. Why is that all of a sudden they feel the government would force them to perform same-sex marriages?

[PhiPsiRuss]

I wouldn't consider this a victory. The decision occured in New York's Supreme Court, which is not the highest court in New York. The litigation isn't over.

As a New Yorker, I believe that if marriage is going to be state sanctioned for heterosexual couples, it should also be for homosexual couples.

What I'm really hoping for is that all state sanctioned marriages will cease. I only want to see state sanctioned domestic partnerships for all. If you want "marriage," which I see as a religious institution, you should go outside the state for it.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
i still don't udnerstand why they had to put it in writing that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages? Religious institutions are currently not compelled to perform heterosexual unions. They can and DO refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples all the time for any number of reasons. Why is that all of a sudden they feel the government would force them to perform same-sex marriages?

You don't understand this because you're Canadian, and you probably aren't taught about our Bill of Rights.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Russ- I thought she was talking about the bill in Canada regarding same-sex marriage.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Russ- I thought she was talking about the bill in Canada regarding same-sex marriage.

I thought that this thread was not about Canada.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
Did you see Harper's address to the Sikh community?

He claimed that same-sex marriage would threaten multiculturalism. The man is nuts. And quite frankly I feel he is the only threat to Canada.
/rant

Some ethnic groups already have issues with their children becoming "too Canadian" and legalizing same-sex marriage in the entire country will cause a larger disdain between multigeneration Canadians and the immigrant community. Immigrant parents have always told their kids not to become "too Canadian", often because of moral reasons and legalizing gay marriage will cause a larger gap. Harper doesn't want this kind of gap.

i still don't udnerstand why they had to put it in writing that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages? Religious institutions are currently not compelled to perform heterosexual unions. They can and DO refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples all the time for any number of reasons. Why is that all of a sudden they feel the government would force them to perform same-sex marriages?

To make sure people FULLY UNDERSTAND. Some religious groups are worried that gay couples would use the new bill to get their minister to marry them. Some people are a little pushy, I guess.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi

Interesting fact of the case: one of the plaintiffs is the son of an interracial couple that moved to California in 1966 when California was the only state whose courts had declared laws prohibiting interracial marriage to be unconstitutional.

Where did you get this?

In 1966, CA was not the only state where interracial marriage was legal.

This from eugenicswatch.com:

In all, 30 states passed anti-miscegenation laws that stayed on the books until the advent of the civil rights movement. Of these, 16 kept their laws on the books until the Supreme Court threw them out in 1967: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Another 14 states passed anti-miscegenation laws, but repealed them in the 1950s or 1960s: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Wow, that list sounds vaguely familiar...

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by Taualumna
...To make sure people FULLY UNDERSTAND. Some religious groups are worried that gay couples would use the new bill to get their minister to marry them. Some people are a little pushy, I guess.

I guess you're right. It's just one of those things that bothers me since the government can't really force any religious institution to marry anyone.