NY Court of Appeals Decides Same-Sex Marriage Case

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Florn Smilsen says:

    So, let me see if I understand (and I admit that this is out of context, but to make a point):

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, but only if they’ve suffered for a really … no, a really, really … long time, so long in fact that the suffering is really … no, really, really … notorious. Then we’ll talk.

  2. matt says:

    No – you don’t understand. The point is that traditional marriage did not evolve directly or indirectly as a mechanism to discriminate against homosexuals.

    That’s really a side point, though. The use of a rational basis standard of review means that the court does not consider homosexual behavior to be a fundamental right, or sexuality to be a suspect classification. Talk about a nail in the coffin for homosexual “civil rights.”

  3. Sarah says:

    The stunning thing in this opinion… and it is truly and opinion with no basis in fact… is that it relegates citizens of the United States to a lesser status and justifies it off the silly notion that women should be out there bearing children. Further, repeated scientific work has pointed toward a biological basis for homosexuality. Rulings like this merely violate both individual liberty and also the freedom of religion. Religion should not be the basis for defining who can marry whom. The argument that child bearing and rearing is the reason to marry has its origins in religion and therefore is not an appropriate way to rule on matters of law. The court itself proves once again the reality of bigotry that it claims doesn’t exist!

    Finally, Matt’s comment about homosexual “civil rights” is appalling. Anyone who would deny people basic rights and freedoms based off of sexual preference have no place in a free society. There can be no legal basis to prevent two consenting adults from participating in a legal union that causes no harm to anyone else or to society as a whole. This absurd notion that two gays marrying somehow undermines heterosexual marriage just indicates how little the so called “Pro-Marriage” crowd believe in marriage to begin with.