By SAMUEL MAULL
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 8, 2005; 7:38 PM
NEW YORK -- A state appeals court Thursday threw out a ruling that would have allowed gay
couples to marry in New York City, saying it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms
"husband" and "wife."
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 4-1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in
February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it
does not permit marriage between people of the same sex.
The appeals court added: "We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the
statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new
constitutional right."
The Supreme Court is New York's main trial-level court. It has its own appeals division.
Ling-Cohan had ruled in favor of five gay couples who sued New York City because the city clerk
had denied their marriage license applications. The gay couples complained that their equal
protection and due process rights under the New York Constitution were violated.
Ling-Cohan barred the city clerk from denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Her decision
was the first of its kind in New York City. In her ruling, she said the words "husband,"
"wife," "groom" and "bride," as they appear in the domestic relations law, should be defined to
apply equally to men and women.
But the appeals court said this "was an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate
and usurped that of the Legislature." The court said it is not up to judges to redefine terms
that are given clear meaning in a statute.
Also, the appeals court said state laws regarding marriage do not violate the state
constitution.
In a dissent, Justice David Saxe said that he saw no important public interest in barring
same-sex marriage and that laws that prohibit it perpetuate discrimination.
But the rest of the court said: "The legislative policy rationale is that society and
government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution
that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing."
Susan Sommer, a lawyer at Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that spearheaded the
same-sex marriage drive, said, "You bet we're going to appeal."
"We've always known that this issue would have to be decided in the state's highest court, and
we're eager to make our case there," Sommer said.
___
On the Net:
Ruling: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_09436.htm
Susie, age 9 - 09 Dec 2005 17:15 GMT
> By SAMUEL MAULL
> The Associated Press
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> redefine the terms
> "husband" and "wife."
Nobody asked these ACTIVIST RIGHT-WING JUDGES to create
the laws, yet they perpetrate the fraud upon gay people NO DIFFERENT
than the way the RACIST BIGOTED judicial system refused to grant
equal rights under the law to African Americans FOR MANY, MANY YEARS!
But what bothers these evil anti-American breeders most is the CERTAINTY
that gay people - in the not-too-distant-future - will have the SAME
rights as they do!
NO MORE SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR BREEDERS!!!
susie
Death - 09 Dec 2005 18:57 GMT
"Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message
> "Pastor Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> smiles
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Nobody asked these ACTIVIST RIGHT-WING JUDGES to create
> the laws, yet they perpetrate the fraud upon gay people ...
You will never be a wife Susie age 9, under anyone's definition.
That does now and will continue to be the role of a female.
The right to marry is available to you just like everyone else.
Find yourself a woman and get married. If you insist on a faggot marriage
find a nice lesbian. Take turns f.cking each other up the a.s. Get a dog
and a two car garage.