Judge strikes down New York's ban on same-sex marriage

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Feb 4th, '05, 15:53

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... york_x.htm

"The judge noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional."

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Feb 4th, '05, 16:06

If the legislature feels it is necessary to pass laws, and local and state judges feel it is their right to remove those laws, I believe it is the DUTY of the legislature to remove said judge. The impeachment process is there for a reason. if they can't get the votes to impeach or remove, then his BS ruling stands. If they can get the votes, His ass is out of there.

We vote for our reps to make the laws, not the judges.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Feb 4th, '05, 20:40

Dr. NO wrote:If the legislature feels it is necessary to pass laws, and local and state judges feel it is their right to remove those laws, I believe it is the DUTY of the legislature to remove said judge. The impeachment process is there for a reason. if they can't get the votes to impeach or remove, then his BS ruling stands. If they can get the votes, His ass is out of there.

We vote for our reps to make the laws, not the judges.

Judges are there to insure that legislatures don't run wild and pass laws that violate our Constitutional protections. If the legislature or the executive branch doesn't like the ruling they can appeal to a higher court and/or attempt to have the Constitution changed.

edit: since I'm still in worked and bored out of my mind, I got around to reading the article in the Times, which noted that the NYS Attorney General, Elliot Abrams last year

issued an opinion stating that while state law would allow New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states, it did not permit such marriages to be carried out in New York. But he also acknowledged that the state's marriage laws raised "serious legal concerns" that must be resolved by the courts."

In short, the court did exactly what courts are supposed to do.