NewsBlog 5000
The finger on the invisible hand

Judge Insists on Interpreting the Law

Friday, February 04, 2005

(SNN) It has happened again. Yet another judge has ruled same sex marriage bans unconstitutional. The judge ruled that preventing gay and lesbian couples from receiving marriage licenses violated basic freedoms guaranteed in the state constitution. Because of this, gay couples in New York may soon be allowed to wed.

Gay couples in New York may soon be allowed to wed.

The ruling declared that the New York City clerk could not deny any couple solely on the grounds that they are of the same gender, but it has been stayed for 30 days while the city determines whether it will appeal. A statement by the city Law declared, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."

Contrary to the findings of three similar cases in New York, Judge Doris Ling-Cohan wrote that same-sex marriage "would cause harm to no one," that there is "no legitimate purpose, let alone a compelling interest" in the marriage laws. Ling-Cohen contended that gender specific pronouns used in law could be understood to mean either a man or a woman.

Many people have long contended that gender specific verbiage does apply in the law.

Many people have long contended that gender specific verbiage does apply in the law. One of these people is commentator Benny McMillan of Columbus, Ohio. McMillan says, “It says on the first page of the Constitution that all MEN are created equal. It doesn’t say anything about women.” On the other side of the gender discrimination debate are groups like the “Topfree 10” of Orlando, FL, and Herbert Long of Concord, CA. The Topfree 10 made a federal case out of whether women could go topless in an area where it was legal for men. Long sued his HMO last year for the right to have a hysterectomy. While Long won his case, he has not yet found a doctor that is able to perform the procedure.

Currently, Massachusetts is the only state to recognize gay marriages, and many states have passed specific constitutional amendments specifically forbidding gay marriages.

I absolutely love that headline.
Same-sex marriages may be a lot of things but I'd have to agree with the judge that 'unconstitutional' is not one of those things. However, whoever it is that's 'pushing' for same-sex marriages is either no friend of the gay community or is being geuinely irrational.

The issue that same-sex couples should be focusing on is the legal recognition of two people (any two people) to join together and receive the same legal rights as 'traditionally' married couples. Calling it "marriage" and insisting on a "wedding," because of the religious injunctions against homosexuality and because the overwealming majority of Americans seem to be devoted to their religions, is just dooming the issue to failure.

A rose, by any other name, is no longer seen to be a rose (but it does smell as sweet).
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link