Spitzer says nay, and yet...
Mar. 3rd, 2004 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/nyregion/03CND-GAY.html?hp
"As the national debate over gay marriage swept across the country again today, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York said that state laws do not authorize marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples and that officials should not solemnize such wedding ceremonies.
Mr. Spitzer made his decision based on the language of the Domestic Relations Law's references to "bride and groom" and "husband and wife." But he said New York's marriage laws raise constitutional questions involving equal protection, and that any uncertainty in that regard must be decided by the courts."
So I wonder... is "husband and wife" to be read as 'this is the only acceptable pairing' or as 'the language of the times' the way that "man" in older documents was read to stand now for "men and women of any color?" I know which I'd choose, but I don't sit on the bench.
In that same article, mention is made that the mayor of Nyack said he too would start "solemnizing" same-sex unions, and Ithaca has started the process to allow same-sex marriages, up to and including offering "legal help to gay couples who go to court if their marriage license applications are denied." Go, them!
I've noticed that the coverage of protests I've seen of gay marriages tend to be by people carrying signs that talk about God and (im)morality. These are the same people who told me it was a sin that Peter and I were living together without the benefit of 'holy matrimony.' Guess what, guys! We still are! (our marriage was a civil ceremony, same as those marriages they're protesting now). So forgive me if I don't think your protests are all that convincing... or, in fact, relevant.
And to anyone who reads this, and has recently entered into the civilly disobedient state of wedding bliss (or if you know someone who has) may I say that all my best wishes are with you, and may your lives together be all that you hoped as you said your vows.
addendum(and if you're interested, check out http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/national/03GEOR.html, an article about how Black leaders in the South, despite their own feelings about same-sex marriage, are making the obvious connection to racial rights and refusing to play along with the ban... )
"As the national debate over gay marriage swept across the country again today, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York said that state laws do not authorize marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples and that officials should not solemnize such wedding ceremonies.
Mr. Spitzer made his decision based on the language of the Domestic Relations Law's references to "bride and groom" and "husband and wife." But he said New York's marriage laws raise constitutional questions involving equal protection, and that any uncertainty in that regard must be decided by the courts."
So I wonder... is "husband and wife" to be read as 'this is the only acceptable pairing' or as 'the language of the times' the way that "man" in older documents was read to stand now for "men and women of any color?" I know which I'd choose, but I don't sit on the bench.
In that same article, mention is made that the mayor of Nyack said he too would start "solemnizing" same-sex unions, and Ithaca has started the process to allow same-sex marriages, up to and including offering "legal help to gay couples who go to court if their marriage license applications are denied." Go, them!
I've noticed that the coverage of protests I've seen of gay marriages tend to be by people carrying signs that talk about God and (im)morality. These are the same people who told me it was a sin that Peter and I were living together without the benefit of 'holy matrimony.' Guess what, guys! We still are! (our marriage was a civil ceremony, same as those marriages they're protesting now). So forgive me if I don't think your protests are all that convincing... or, in fact, relevant.
And to anyone who reads this, and has recently entered into the civilly disobedient state of wedding bliss (or if you know someone who has) may I say that all my best wishes are with you, and may your lives together be all that you hoped as you said your vows.
addendum(and if you're interested, check out http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/national/03GEOR.html, an article about how Black leaders in the South, despite their own feelings about same-sex marriage, are making the obvious connection to racial rights and refusing to play along with the ban... )
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-03 04:37 pm (UTC)Which means they don't get to tell us what to do. "Congress shall make no law... respecting establishment of religion." Numero Uno.
With each new city, I'm more reminded of the fall of the Berlin wall, which wasn't so much legislated against as simply unable to stand against the pressure of social change.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-03 07:43 pm (UTC)