Will New York be next??
Feb. 5th, 2005 12:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grinninfooleThe Boston Globe reported today that New York county judge Doris Ling-Cohan has ruled that New York City may not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A few notable excerpts:
Comparing prohibitions on gay marriage to once-common laws against interracial marriage, a trial court judge in Manhattan ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have a right to wed under the state constitution.
Noting that state laws against interracial marriages remained common into the 1960s, Ling-Cohan wrote that ''the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners."
In the first paragraph of her 62-page ruling, Ling-Cohan noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the child of an interracial couple who moved from Texas to California to marry in 1966, a year before the US Supreme Court struck down antimiscegenation laws.
''Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone," she wrote.
Of course, some idiots are alarmed about gay marriage and reject the comparison to mixed-race marriages with stunning disingenousness:
''This speaks to the need for a marriage protection amendment to put an end to these judicial fire drills by aberrant judges," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council based in Washington, who contended that the analogy to interracial marriage is flawed. In the case of a mixed-race couple, he said, ''you had two people who met the qualification of marriage, because they were a man and a woman. You weren't changing the definition of the institution."
Comparing prohibitions on gay marriage to once-common laws against interracial marriage, a trial court judge in Manhattan ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have a right to wed under the state constitution.
Noting that state laws against interracial marriages remained common into the 1960s, Ling-Cohan wrote that ''the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners."
In the first paragraph of her 62-page ruling, Ling-Cohan noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the child of an interracial couple who moved from Texas to California to marry in 1966, a year before the US Supreme Court struck down antimiscegenation laws.
''Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone," she wrote.
Of course, some idiots are alarmed about gay marriage and reject the comparison to mixed-race marriages with stunning disingenousness:
''This speaks to the need for a marriage protection amendment to put an end to these judicial fire drills by aberrant judges," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council based in Washington, who contended that the analogy to interracial marriage is flawed. In the case of a mixed-race couple, he said, ''you had two people who met the qualification of marriage, because they were a man and a woman. You weren't changing the definition of the institution."
