Spitzer: Gay marriage not legal in NY

[kayell]

Damn, I was so hopeful after his remarks yesterday.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-spitzergays0303,0,385392.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
In a blow to gay marriage efforts, an advisory legal opinion to be issued this afternoon by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer says that New York State's marriage law does not authorize officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to a senior Spitzer aide.

The opinion discourages local officials from issuing such licenses and solemnizing gay marriages, and warns that officials who do so leave themselves vulnerable to criminal charges such as the ones brought against New Paltz Mayor Jason West after he began officiating such ceremonies Friday. West is scheduled to be arraigned this evening on 19 misdemeanor counts brought by the Ulster County district attorney.

But Spitzer's opinion also says that it is permissible under New York law for officials to recognize same sex marriages that were performed in other states. The Spitzer aide also said that the attorney general was not planning to take any legal action against officials who ignore his opinion.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. It may not be legal.

The question really is does not allowing it violate the constitution of NY. Simply having something be "legal" dosen't make it "constitutional".

[stepnw1f]

3. Exactly

This so-called law that outlaws issuances of Marriage licenses, may be unconstitutional to begin with. I believe this effort to purport the illegality of gay marriage in NY is a bluff and they know it. Once the constitutionality of this so-called law is tested in court, the flood gates of the Right-wing will have to open and this country will have to allow gays to marry.

[DarkPhenyx]

8. Which they have all but admitted anyway.

Thus the rush to push through an amendment.

[stepnw1f]

11. Oh I know...and I know they won't pass it.

[11 Bravo]

2. Who cares?

Not so very long ago interracial marriage was "not legal", women voting was "not legal', and slaves learning how to read was "not legal". Some wrongs are simply so egregious that they demand civil disobedience.

[trogdor]

6. The time to argue this is after the election.

The Bushies would just love to make this whole election cycle about gay marriage, a potential deal-breaker issue that may assure the chimp's "re-selection."

The question is, would you rather deal with President Kerry next year, and get at least a good-faith audience, or deal with President Bush, in which case you might as well be talking to the wall? Think about that.

[aquart]

7. We're not getting the choice. The dam has burst. The issue is here NOW.

[kayell]

9. Go read this article, imagine knowing these women, or being them

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0409/conaway.php
and then make your arguments about waiting.

Would you have wanted the Lovings to wait also? There's always an election just around the corner. We can't risk the presidency. We can't interfere with our new presidents ability to pass legislation. We can't risk losing the Senate. We can't risk this, or that, or the other. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[David__77]

4. Spitzer is wrong.

Just because the words "bride" and "groom" are used does not designate gender in marriage. It does not even say marriage consists of a bride and a groom--it just uses the terms to refer to a man in a marriage and a woman in a marriage. Its unclear enough that the right thing is to allow same gender marriages.

This is too bad. I hope the courts do not come to the same conclusion.

[CaptainClark23]

5. What an AG should be!

He made sure to come out yesterday to give his PERSONAL opinion, knowing that today he'd be issuing his PROFESSIONAL opinion as to what the existing law of the describes.

I find it encouraging that he is in no way interested in pursuing violations, however. That speaks volumes.

[kayell]

10. He is great, and I'm incredibly happy that he spoke out yesterday

I also think that the various DOMAs and restricting marriage are unconstitutional. For that matter, so do the wingnuts, or they wouldn't see the need for a Marriage Discrimination Amendment.

I don't know why I had hoped that it would turn out ok with NY law. Excessive giddiness fueled by the number of municipalities starting to do marriages probably.

Spitzer does make it clear that he won't be involved in prosecuting cases based on laws that will later be ruled unconstitional.