What's wierd to me about this decision is that the 6 judge panel did not really have a majority -- they split 3 and 3.

Instead of a real majority, the decision was based on a "plurality" of 3, because the 3 dissenting judges did not all dissent for the same reasons. Strange.

But what is more dissapointing to me is that the "plurality" did not write their decision based on the principle in question: equal treatment under the law. Equal treatment is the idea that we can't give some people tax breaks and power of attorney, and deny those legislated benefits to others because of sexual orientation.

Instead, they wrote their decision based on their belief that "children are better raised with a mother and a father, than with two people of the same sex." Clearly an activist ruling if I ever did hear one!

They might as well have said that single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids either!

Ummmmm, I don't even know what to say anymore. Nice how our lives suddenly become an "issue" to be punted and tossed around like a hot potato instead of dealt with head-on. And Howie, it's okay to say the word "gay" when you talk. You won't become "it" if you say "it." (shaking head sadly)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20060706/co_po/reportsamesexmarriagehelpskids

The above link is to a study stating gay marriage helps kids.

The majority of people do not support gay marriage. There are other restrictions also, such as age limitations and inter-family. People consider MA liberal and the judges there as being activist.

Posted by MominTN on July 7, 2006 at 10:34 AM

Even if the majority of people don't support equal treatment under the law, in a Representative Democracy such as ours, the rights of minorities are meant to be protected. It's really not a question of whether you think gay marriage is moral or not: it is simply a question of equal treatment under the law.

Its actually rather simple. The majority of voters did not agree with intergration iin the 1950's either.

Let's see here:
Do the majority of people support the right of incarcerated pedophiles to marry? I am willing to bet they don't, yet it is perfectly legal for a pedophile in prison to be legally married.

Do the majority of people support the idea of opposite sex couples getting married, reproducing, getting divorced, getting married to someone else, reproducing more, and getting divorced again? I have a feeling that many of our fellow citizens would frown on that sort of behavior. Yet, it is perfectly legal behavior.

Preventing same sex couples from being legally married has nothing to do with the preservation of tradition, providing for children or bolstering the institution of marriage. It is completely about bigotry.

There is no other way to explain why all branches of our government are taking turns passing the hot potato of marriage equality. It is presumed to be an inevitability, yet no one wants to be the official holding the potato when the needle comes off the record. In New York, the courts say - "send it to the legislature." In California, the legislature sends it to the Governor and he says - "let the courts decide."

If same sex marriage becomes legal what would the politicians (from both parties) use as bait for the election season?

Gov Dean sure thinks the court decision is bad. Is he going on the 700 Club to talk about why same sex families should be protected in America?

Posted by MominTN on July 7, 2006 at 10:34 AM

You kinda scare me because I'm from TN too. You'd be surprised how many of us are raising families right around you, ma'am.

Let me ask you this: if I NEVER darken the doorway of your church to demand the right to marry my partner and thus you are never in a position to make a moral decision about my life, would you feel differently?

Exactly why should you enforce your beliefs about morality on the greater population when how I live my life has no impact on your life whatsoever?

I'm not trying to impact or change you, but you folks sure want to try to change me. It seems like you anti-equality folks like to push others around but don't like it when someone pushes back. I'm willing to live and let live, but that's not good enough for you.

I cannot belive this. The Republicans are saying that they want to keep the sanctity of marriage and not allow gay's and lesbians to marry. If they want to make gay marriage illegal to "protect the sanctity of marriage" ,then I would LOVE to see them argue how allowing people to divorce does not apply to "protecting the sanctity of marriage."

Convoluted Argument of NY Court on Gay Marriage

NY's highest court in its cowardly (essentially, it referred the matter back to the state legislature) decision to maintain the anti-gay marriage stance under NY State law the other day, for one thing 'rationalized' that the state supports the limitation on marriage (to straight persons), because it is derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

Let's look at just this argument of the 'majority' on the court. The court said that marriage should be preserved as an 'inducement' to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. The implication being that without such 'inducement', perhaps many straight couples would not marry in the interests of nuturing children that may be conceived, say accidentally or without planning or desire (that many straight couples with children today do not marry has become the rule rather than the exception, state sanction or not). Marriage then with this convoluted logic infers that straight couples, or at least a significant enough portion of them, are not necessarily to be trusted without what tantamounts to a bribe to become responsible parents, in state sanctioned, preferentially treated unions. . .

Well, that said, what about gay persons who wish to maintain a 'marital' arrangement in the specific interests of children for which they have planned and desire to nuture within a stable, loving relationship? Do they not deserve the same support and state sanctioning of those unions, to the added welfare of the children involved- which is the state's interest as defined by the justices themselves?

To this writer it seems the court has ruled that the secular institution of marriage is specifically designed by the state for those not to be trusted otherwise with the responsible nuturing of their children. Whereas, those who have responsibly taken on that the task of raising children within a loving, stable relationship (which again is in the state's interest) are not to be accorded the same incentives and acknowledgement if they happen to be gay.

How's that for unreasonable, legalistic nonsense!

This argument is especially egregious, despite the justices' 'intuition', since the overwhelmingly valid evidence shows that children growing up in gay households are just as happy and well adjusted as those of straight ones.

BLOG ON
PLANET REVOLUTION Blog

That was well said, planetpatriot.

My partner got the chance to go on the RFamily vacation cruise (the one run by Rosie O'Donnell and her wife, Kelli O'Donnell) through a free ticket.

She said there were 3,000 people on board, nearly all of them couples with children. Most of the couples were adopting different race children, including our good friend who got her on the cruise.

Hundreds of thousands of gay couples are taking on the responsibility of a permanent relationship and raising a family, caring for children that are not even their own, but we don't get acknowledgement or appreciation for stepping up to the plate. In fact, we are smacked down like bad children for trying to do good things. Where is the logic in saying that Britney Spears can have a Vegas fling and drop the guy after 24 hours but she gets rights that gay people committed for 20+ years and raising kids can't.

This is illogical, inhumane, and cruelly vicious. It's time for it to stop.

Too ba "Democrat" Sheldon Silver is lukewarm on the idea. He is truly a discrace to our party (for many more reasons than just this) and the caucus should remove him from his leadership post ASAP

It is unfortunate that the Democratic party has become a mouth-piece for the GLBT. It really looks bad when they say that they are for improving our society, especially when you consider how children are affected in their early years by what what they are taught by their parents and what they see their parents doing. It's up to the parents to teach their children right from wrong. It's difficult enough to do this without government trying to change the Christian mores of our society and heritage. Just because there are wrongs in our society, doesn't mean we should add to those that already exist nor should we embrace the wrongs with approval from our courts. Each woman has the same right to enter into a real marriage, as well as each man. Those rights are protected and equal under the Constitution.

children are affected in their early years by what what they are taught by their parents and what they see their parents doing.

Oh, like domestic violence, drug abuse, divorce, adultery, and oh yeah, hating others for loving each other.

Tell ya what, ya'll clean up your own house first before trying to tell us gay folks what to do, 'kay?

I think that it is stupid for the ruling to have said that it is healthier for children to be raised by a mother and father. Does that mean single couples should not be allowed to have children? It is the quality of the parents that matter. And besides scientific evidence has said the contrary. Children raised in same-sex households tend to be more successful than those in heterosexual homes. Bottom line it is whether a child has good parents/ or a single parent not whether their parent is gay or straight. I am sick of these so-called educated individuals rejecting fact.

Let's get back to the separation of church and state.
Civil marriage is just that, a marriage performed by a government official to give two peoples' relationship a certain legal status.
A church wedding joins two people in the eyes of God. In this country is also gives those two people that same legal status.
However in some countries there has to be two ceremonies, one civil and one by religious authority, or the marriage is either only recognized by the state, or only by the religious authorities.
If two people are married by civil authority, it has nothing to do with any denomination.
What's the next step? Are only certain denominations going to be allowed to perform legal marriages? Which ones are they going to be? Will we have to get permission from Pat Robertson or Sun Myung Moon to get married?
Where does the line get drawn?