posted on March 5, 2004 07:12:08 PM new
N.Y. Judge Bars Mayor From Gay Marriages
45 minutes ago
Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press Writer
ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York state judge on Friday barred the mayor of a college town from performing more same-sex marriages for a month, saying he was ignoring his oath of office.
Lawyers for the city of San Francisco, meanwhile, defended the more than 3,600 gay marriages sanctioned there, arguing to the California Supreme Court that nothing in the state constitution requires local officials to obey laws they believe infringe on the civil rights of their citizens.
New York Justice Vincent Bradley issued a temporary restraining order against the 26-year-old mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, at the request of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which acted on behalf of a local resident.
"The mayor in substance ignores the oath of office that he took to uphold the law," Bradley said.
West insisted he was upholding his oath of office to uphold the constitution.
"But in our system of constitutional government, judges have the last word," West said in a prepared statement. "I intend to fully abide by the judge's decision. And I am considering legal options."
The ruling came as New York Gov. George Pataki said the state is ready to crack down on any official who performs a wedding without a marriage license. West performed his first spate of 25 same-sex marriages a week ago in his village, which is about 75 miles north of New York City and includes the State University at New Paltz.
San Francisco's lawyers were responding to efforts by the state attorney general and a Christian public interest law firm to invalidate the 3,632 same-sex marriages that have been sanctioned in the city during the last three weeks. City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed briefs arguing that municipal authorities are "independently responsible" to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The California Supreme Court had ordered the city to respond to a pair of petitions asking for a prompt judicial declaration on the legality of the same-sex marriages, but the justices have not indicated when they might rule in the case.
Those seeking to shut down San Francisco's gay wedding spree, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, argue that an existing section of the California Constitution prohibits "administrative agencies" of the state from declaring laws unconstitutional on their own.
In Oregon, meanwhile, a lawsuit was filed Friday by the Defense of Marriage Coalition two days after officials in Multnomah County began sanctioning gay weddings. The group contends that county commissioners violated the state Public Meetings Law by agreeing privately among themselves to change county policy. The group also argues that Oregon law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
"We would rather have a debate through the democratic process, but we were not given that choice," said Kelly Clark, an attorney for the coalition.
The coalition, organized by Republicans, appeared to get support from Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who said a debate on gay marriage was needed. In his "state of the state" address, he asked Oregonians to "step back and take a deep breath and give the process a chance to work."
Kulongoski also noted he expects a legal opinion soon from Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers.
Also Friday, lawmakers in Wisconsin and Kansas pushed ahead with efforts to amend their states' constitutions to ban gay marriage, while a similar measure died in Idaho.
The proposal approved by the Wisconsin Assembly 68-27 would prohibit same-sex marriages and civil unions. It now goes to the state Senate. More approval from lawmakers and voters also would be required for it to become law.
In Kansas, the House voted 88-36 for an amendment to ban gay marriages and the granting of benefits associated with marriage to other relationships. It would need a two-thirds vote in the Senate and majority in the November election to become part of the constitution.
The Idaho proposal, which would have banned gay marriages, failed on a 20-13 vote to come out of committee. Amendment opponents emphasized during the debate that the state had already passed a law in 1996 banning gay marriage.
Fourteen states are seeking this year to amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriages. States in recent years have already acted broadly in opposition to the prospect of same-sex marriages, passing so-called Defense of Marriage laws in 38 states. Four have amended their own constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
posted on March 7, 2004 01:07:58 PM new
You can have all 50 states pass laws. All it will take is for the Surpreme Court to declare this unconsitutional because of discrimination and there will be no states with "marriage laws" on the books.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 7, 2004 02:42:23 PM new
logansdad - and there will be no states with "marriage laws" on the books.
Yes, we're clear that's your agenda....and that's why so many American's/states/and the Federal Government are trying to stop you and people like you. We don't want to see that happen.
posted on March 7, 2004 03:21:27 PM newYes, we're clear that's your agenda....
Ah yes...the gay agenda.....
If you are referring to preventing discrimination and fighting for equality... then yes that is our agenda.
This was never an issue until the DOMA was passed and states started passing laws to define what they thought marriage should be. After more and more states started passing laws, it left the gay community with no choice but to stand up and take action.
I am sure it was Rosa Parks' agenda not to give up her seat on the bus. I am sure it was the woman's agenda to fight for the right to have an abortion.
Despit what you may think, gays have been fighting for equal rights for decades and we will not stop just because a state passes a law defining what marriage is.
You keep claiming marriage is a "tradition". Well traditions are not written in stone and I see same sex marriages happening here in America within the next decade.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
Impeach Bush
[ edited by logansdad on Mar 7, 2004 05:02 PM ]
posted on March 7, 2004 03:48:34 PM new
logansdad - And you know I've already stated I support gays/lesbians having equal rights. But it is also my position that there is no reason it has to fall under the term marriage and can't be it's own separate 'union'. Because it IS different.
posted on March 7, 2004 04:13:01 PM new
So smart guy, what's your answer when the Supreme court does declare a marriage only between a man and a woman?
It would seem that breaking the law will no longer be an option, states can still allow civil unions... most americans do see that as a viable solution... all it seems who think they are equal...
I seen before where people were comparing queers and their sexual behavior to some animals... so it seems that they have not evolved as much as the rest of us and therefore are inferior...
posted on March 7, 2004 04:14:43 PM new54 percent in Oregon oppose same-sex marriage, poll says
03/07/04
JEFF MAPES
As gay and lesbian couples lined up to wed in Multnomah County last week, most Oregon voters looked on the legality of same-sex marriages with disapproval, according to a statewide poll conducted for The Oregonian.
From Our Advertiser
The Thursday survey of 400 voters found that 54 percent do not think same-sex marriages should be legal. But a majority appears ready to back civil unions that would provide gays and lesbians with some of the same benefits as marriage.
The poll found striking age and gender differences, with younger voters in favor of same-sex marriage and men much more likely to be opposed than women.
Multnomah County's surprise decision to throw open the doors to same-sex marriage vaulted the issue to the top of the political agenda, with nearly three-quarters of voters saying it is an important issue that the state should resolve now.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said the survey results show the public is with them in their attempt to qualify a proposed ballot measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow marriages only between one man and one woman.
"That's the reason we feel so strongly the debate needs to be taken to Oregonians," said Tim Nashif of the newly formed Defense of Marriage Coalition, "and that's why we're so aggrieved that the Multnomah County commissioners didn't allow us to do that."
Gay-rights activists conceded they face a tough fight if the measure reaches the November ballot, but they think attitudes are beginning to change in Oregon.
"This is a new issue for most people," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon. "It's something they're just starting to learn about, and our job would be to educate them about what marriage rights are and how marriage for everyone strengthens families and helps children."
Oregon opposition to gay marriages may be slightly lower than in the rest of the nation. Four recent national polls, which used slightly different wording in each case, put opposition at between 55 percent and 65 percent.
Interviews with survey respondents made it clear Oregon voters come at the issue from a broad variety of experiences and deeply held personal beliefs.
Madeline Temple, 87, a Hillsboro retiree, said gay marriage is contrary to everything she has ever known.
"I don't think it's a civil rights issue," she said. "It's a 'normal' issue. It's absolutely wrong to marry somebody of the same sex."
Jennifer Brent, 44, an Aloha homemaker, said she was looking forward to seeing her sister-in-law get married to her partner in Portland this week. The same-sex couple have been traveling after celebrating 25 years together, Brent said, and "watching someone live and love and have an incredible relationship reinforces that there is no difference" between gay and straight marriage.
Like the national polls, the Oregon survey showed younger voters are much more accepting of same-sex marriage. "Twenty years from now, this could be a moot point," said Tim Hibbitts, the Portland pollster who conducted the survey.
Among voters younger than 35, 53 percent said gay couples should be able to legally marry; 25 percent of voters age 55 and older said that should be the case.
"Young people are growing up in an era when they know gay and lesbian people," Thorpe said. That, she said, makes them likely to want full equality for "people in their family and among their friends."
Nashif said younger people may become more resistant to gay marriage as they grow older, marry and have children. But he said he couldn't predict that.
Men and women also had strong differences, with 61 percent of men opposed to gay marriage compared with 48 percent of women. That's a larger gender gap than found in recent national surveys. But surveys also have found that men in general have a much more negative attitude than women toward gay men.
When asked how society should deal with same-sex relationships, about a third of Oregon voters said they want to preserve traditional marriage and would oppose civil unions for gays. Another third support gay marriage, and 29 percent said they back civil unions that would legally recognize same-sex relationships. That means there could be a majority for some form of civil union.
Many political figures have staked out this middle ground. Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who criticized the Multnomah County commissioners' actions, said he supports civil unions. So does Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. President Bush has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, but he said states should be "free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
Because Oregon is now one of the major fronts in the war over gay marriage, Hibbitts said the issue could loom larger in the presidential race in the state.
The poll showed Republicans are much more unified in their opposition to gay marriage -- 77 percent oppose it and 14 percent support it -- than are Democrats, who narrowly support it, 47 percent to 41 percent opposed.
That could make it harder for Kerry to navigate supporters with different views, Hibbitts said.
The poll also showed Kerry has a narrow lead in Oregon over Bush, while independent Ralph Nader maintains a steady level of support. Kerry is backed by 45 percent, compared with 40 percent for the Republican president and 5 percent for Nader.
In contrast, a March 1-3 national poll for The Associated Press showed 46 percent for Bush, 45 percent for Kerry and 6 percent for Nader.
Hibbitts said Kerry probably is a slight favorite to win Oregon this year, but he noted that the poll was taken as Bush has faced an onslaught of negative publicity during the Democratic primary race and has had recent setbacks on issues ranging from Iraq to the economy.
posted on March 7, 2004 04:59:13 PM new
So smart guy, what's your answer when the Supreme court does declare a marriage only between a man and a woman?
I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it. I would still be able to love the person that I am currently loving. I don't need a piece of paper (ie marriage licenese) to do that.
It would seem that breaking the law will no longer be an option, states can still allow civil unions... most americans do see that as a viable solution... all it seems who think they are equal...
I seen before where people were comparing queers and their sexual behavior to some animals... so it seems that they have not evolved as much as the rest of us and therefore are inferior...
[/b]I have seen animals with more brains than you have twleve. Animals can at least distinguish between love and hate. You show them love and they will show it back to you.
It is because of people like you that the minority will always stand up and fight for what they believe in.[/b]
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 05:14:10 PM new
The Thursday survey of 400 voters found that 54 percent do not think same-sex marriages should be legal. But a majority appears ready to back civil unions that would provide gays and lesbians with some of the same benefits as marriage.
How can you get an accurate picture by using 400 people? 54% while it is a majority does clarify this issue. What happened to all those other polls showing that 66% to 75% of all Americans were in favor of not allowing same sex marriages
The poll found striking age and gender differences, with younger voters in favor of same-sex marriage and men much more likely to be opposed than women.
Here again it shows the youth of American more tolerant of the issue than the older people in this country. It also shows that it is the straight white male that has a problem more than women. Why because they cant stand the fact of two men having sex, but seeing two women having sex is ok.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 05:26:06 PM new
That was not a national poll, just a local one to Oregon...
A very liberal state...
So are you catching the hint that people don't want same sex marriages but would tolerate civil unions?
I don't need a piece of paper (ie marriage licenese) to do that.
Then after all it is really just BS for wanting to be "Married" you just can't stand the fact that it would be called a civil union...
Which I don't want either but would tolerate it more than marriage...
Maybe in 30 or 40 years when us "breeders" start dying you will get your wish... oh but wait because of the illegal actions taking place now, there maybe a Federal constitutional amendment and then that would need to be repealed... LOL
But then again you maybe satisfied with civil union by then
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 7, 2004 05:32 PM ]
posted on March 7, 2004 05:36:31 PM newSo are you catching the hint that people don't want same sex marriages but would tolerate civil unions?
Call it what you want, to me there is no difference between the two. So basically you (those in favor of civil unions, not twelve) are ok with same sex "marriages" as long as you don't use the word "marriage" to describe it. So it isnt the act that you are worried about it is the term being used to describe it.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 05:49:33 PM new
Wasn't it the government who didn't want gays in the military because of all the rampant gay sex that would go on and because of what it would do to troop morale?
I am sure sex is the last thing a gay soldier is thinking about while he is in combat in Iraq. I think he is more concerned about keeping himself and the others in his platoon alive.
I am glad to see the governments fears coming true on this issue. How many years has it been since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell was passed"?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
