Court Wrong Place To Decide Gay Marriage Bloomberg Lawyer Says

[TechBear_Seattle]

Court Wrong Place To Decide Gay Marriage Bloomberg Lawyer Says
by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau

Posted: September 13, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(New York City) A New York appeals court Tuesday was told that only the legislature should decide whether same-sex couples should marry.

The court is hearing an appeal by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of a February ruling by Judge Doris Ling-Cohan that said the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and that the New York city clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex.

Continues at http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/091305nyAppeal.htm

"Only the legislature," that is, unless the legislature decides that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, as in California. In that case, it is for the courts to decide.

[TaleWgnDg]

1. This b*llsh*t reminds me of that kid's game . . . "hot potato" . . .

.
This b*llsh*t reminds me of that kid's game . . . "hot potato" . . .
but, here, the spinless and gutless politicians pass around ppl's lives and that of their families including their children!


.

[Meeker Morgan]

2. The only way "gay marriage" that is equality ...

... will stick is by the legislature.

Do you really expect that any state court decision would stand up to the Supreme Court?

But a state law would stand without getting that far.

[closeupready]

3. Lawsuits about state laws can't be appealed to the US Supreme Court

so if a decision, such as in MA, is handed down mandating equal accommodation for gays w/r/t marriage, it stands, and the US Supreme Court (technically) can't rule on it. Though we know they sometimes step in to meddle in state affairs when it suits them, but I digress...

[Lexingtonian]

4. no.

Don't buy into that b.s. about legislatures. The reason the Goodridge lawsuit was filed was because the Mass. legislature refused to let the bills come to the floor. You take the door that opens first, that's how it is.

One of the attempts to overturn the Goodridge verdict was a federal court case, Largess v SJC, in which the plaintiffs claimed that the verdict amount to "judicial tyranny" and sued under the Tyranny Clause. It was rejected at the circuit court level and rejected at the appeals court level.

And this is the Supreme Court rejection of the appeal-

http://www.glad.org/News_Room/press82-11-29-04.html