Activism from the Bench

Apparently at least one more judge wasn't paying attention to the news on 3rd November, 2004.

NEW YORK — A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a ruling that would allow gay couples to wed if it is upheld on appeal.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride" in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law "shall be construed to mean 'spouse,"' and "all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."

Ling-Cohan ruled on the side of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. She said the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.

Susan Sommer, Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for the five couples, called the ruling "historic" and said it "delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers."

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," Sommer said. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

Gay people do receive the same treatment under the law that straight people do; it's not everyone else's fault if they don't like it. I have the right to marry a woman; a gay man has the right to marry a woman. Neither of us have the right to marry a man. I don't want to marry a man; a gay man might. This doesn't mean we're being treated unequally, it just means that the gay man doesn't get what he wants out of the law.

America (even Oregon) sent an overwhelming message on 2nd November against the legalization of gay marriage. Now there are the same old arguments in New York, Idaho, and even Oregon. It's asinine.