This Story is Archived
NY Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage »
Posted by: Karina 2 years, 2 months agoThe decision was 4-2, with the chief justice dissenting. The majority decision was based on the idea that gay couples do not have a demonstrable history of marrying, therefore stopping them from doing so cannot violate their inalienable civil rights.
Read Full Story at wnbc.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 570
-
-
-
-
zman
July 6, 2006, 9:47 a.m.Why are some people treated as "lesser".........we are equal in this Country except in the eyes of the Religious right
-
-
AbrogateThat
July 6, 2006, 9:53 a.m.They should be ruling on things such as were the EPA and state authorities negligent about informing rescue workers at ground zero of air contamination on 9/11
-
AbrogateThat
July 6, 2006, 9:53 a.m.They should be ruling on things such as were the EPA and state authorities negligent about informing rescue workers at ground zero of air contamination on 9/11
-
faraphoenix418
July 6, 2006, 9:56 a.m.How on earth are they supposed to have a "demonstrable history of marrying" if we as a nation have never let them do so? And as far as "inaienable rights", I think it is very clear in a quotation of the Declaration that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't say "all men are created equal most of the time, some of the time, or when ever we feel like it time". And personally, I'd say this hinders their "pursuit of Happiness". I thought one of the great things about this nation was that we were supposed to have this thing called "seperation of church and state". Whatever happened to it?
-
capger
July 6, 2006, 9:57 a.m.It always seems to be ok to tell someone they can not do something until it's you who's told you can't do what you want to do. A gay couple marrying has no effect on anyone except the couple themselves. I thought inclusiveness and acceptance of others was what this country was supposed to be about. If that is so, we need to accept "ALL".
-
brad1231
July 6, 2006, 9:58 a.m.They are ruling on things that ALL people want a ruling on. It's unfortunate they can not rule in favor of both sides. They determined what they felt was best and now it becomes LAW. Your beef should not be with the Supreme Court, YOU asked for it.. now ya got it and you are upset. EPA, CIA, FBI, whatever they ruled on, you would still want a favorable ruling on YOUR issue..... so LIVE WITH IT!!!! DEAL WITH IT, or join the majority of judges who felt things should be THIS WAY... not YOUR WAY..... sorry about that~~~~~~~~~
BB~
-
AbrogateThat
July 6, 2006, 10:01 a.m.No if they ruled on EPA I'd want them to rule in their favor of the rest of 9/11's lies. It would just be more evidence for the house's shift next election.
-
Awinphoto
July 6, 2006, 10:17 a.m.Just because the ruling did not rule in the favor of one persons/people point of view does not mean that the ruling is biased and unfair. The court systems has to make huge decisions every day that directly effects people lives in one way or another. They are sworn to uphold the law and should their ruling be wrong and illegimate, our checks and balances system will step in and over-rule that decision.
Since this is a free country you have the right to be upset and speak out against this matter, but also keep in mind this simple fact... When people go against the american values, people always jump into saying if you do not like our ways, you have the right to leave...
Gay and lesbian unions and relationships are something that the courts have been ruling on for years, they haven't ruled in their favor then, and they have not now.
-
mossback
July 6, 2006, 10:22 a.m.At last -- sanity is beginning to make a comeback on the bench. I know this isn't popular, but Gay's have no right or reason to marry. They do not create children therefore they do not create future value in a society -- they are consuming sponges that disrupt the core values of what makes a society work. Glad to see the ruling! If a gay wants to marry, they know what they need to do, find someone of the opposite sex and get married. Life is tough, and there are tough choices to be made.
-
AbrogateThat
July 6, 2006, 10:24 a.m.Sounds like something the KKK would pass around the clubhouse and makes my skin crawl.
-
Irishlad
July 6, 2006, 10:25 a.m.Yes, someday gays will be able to marry and be considered a normal part of society. Yes, in that day not only gays, but necrophiles, incest couples, pedophiles, and yes some day even a man and his goat may live nextdoor as man and spouse and maybe someday, just someday, they might be able to adopt and be considered an all American family.
-
calvinci
July 6, 2006, 10:27 a.m.Finally a court shows the courage to rule on the law and not to bend to the fashionable will. The ruling is legally correct whether one likes it or not. The only way to change this state of affairs has to be legally, through the legislature or by amendment to the state's constitution, and not by juidical fiat. The NY Court of Appeals got it right.
-
cordele
July 6, 2006, 10:28 a.m.This is a good ruling, the NY Supreme Court is ruling on law not emotion. Gay couple have the same rights as I. There is no right as a straight guy, that I have that they don't. I can't marry a man,[don't won't to either], but I can't. If I wanted to give my roomate rights, I have to go get a power of attorney or a will like every one else. Their right are our rights, what they want is more rights that I, that my friend is not equal protection.
-
cordele
July 6, 2006, 10:28 a.m.This is a good ruling, the NY Supreme Court is ruling on law not emotion. Gay couple have the same rights as I. There is no right as a straight guy, that I have that they don't. I can't marry a man,[don't won't to either], but I can't. If I wanted to give my roomate rights, I have to go get a power of attorney or a will like every one else. Their right are our rights, what they want is more rights than I, that my friend is not equal protection.
-
calvinci
July 6, 2006, 10:30 a.m.By the way, get it right Netscape. The highest court in NY is not called the "Supreme Court;" (that is actually the lowest court in NY.) The correct name for the highest court in NY is the Court of Appeals.
-
cordele
July 6, 2006, 10:31 a.m.This would have not happen if the Gay community wouldn't try to shove gay marriage down our thoughts. Frankly I don't care what you do. I do believe God is a judger of us all. I don't believe the state should have a say one way or another. But at the same time- I don't think I should be force either by the Gay community to except their ways, If I don't want to. But they continue to push the issue, and then complain when they don't get their way. Stop crying.
-
Your Name Here
July 6, 2006, 10:38 a.m.I don't get it. Why would anyone want to stop others from having a happy and fullfilling relationship. If 2 gay people want to comit to each other in a legally binding marriage, they should be allowed to. While it may not be in the bible. There are many in this country that are not religious. They might be pagans, agnostic or athiest. We should not be projecting our morals on them when it comes to love and marriage. IF they want to live, love and treat others with respect then I say... GO FOR IT !
-
Kovu
July 6, 2006, 10:42 a.m.It's an interesting look at the matter constitutionally, and it looks like it will get kicked right to the Supreme Court now. It'll be nice to hear the end of it one way or another. I honestly do not believe gays will be able to marry. The court has a good point: it has never in history been a given as a demonstrable right. We shall see.
-
Swamp
July 6, 2006, 10:44 a.m.THIS IS SO STUPID. If "God" doesn't make mistakes, then WHY THE (ahem) DO PEOPLE THINK GAY LOVE IS EVIL?! Those of you who thing you have some wise, heterosexist, homophobic info, learn to spell. This isn't going to change anything, just make more people mad and what with our "genius" president's approval rating as it is, I don't think this is going to help anyone except the HOMOPHOBIC, PREJUDICED, SEXIST, RACIST, HETEROSEXIST, RIGHT-WING, GUN-HAPPY, MORONS WHO SEEM TO HAVE MONOPOLIZED AMERICA. ugh. This country is going to the dogs. I have nothing more to say.
-
AbrogateThat
July 6, 2006, 10:44 a.m.Since when do rights mean anything though? Im sure the patriot act makes you a terrorist for dancing in a gay bar.
-
PaulMA64
July 6, 2006, 10:45 a.m.This is sad. Being gay is not a choice. Gay people deserve rights just like any others and this should be a legal issue and in no way should it be a religious issue. I don't think any gay people want to get married in a catholic church so the catholics should stay out of it. Aren't church and state supposed to be separate in this country? Isn't the United States based on freedom of choice and equality to all? Gay people want to get married so that they can enjoy the same legal benefits that straight married couples get. Religious groups need to stay out of this debate...it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with equal rights for all citizens of this great country. If our legislators can not keep religion out of their law making decisions, they should be voted out! Are there any laws saying that blacks, hispanics and dwarfs cant marry? NO! Then there should be nothing stopping gay people from marrying either.....they were born gay and they shouldn't be treated like freaks!
The first 25 comments are shown. Show all 570 comments »
Submitted By:
Karina
Karina Longworth blogs about film at Spout.com. She co-founded the film blog Cinematical in March 2005, whilst simultaneously completing an MA in Cinema Studies ...
