Comments on: Paterson Says Same-Sex Marriage Edict Follows State Law

By: v.i.p

v.i.p — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:23:03 +0000

I think gay marriage shouldn’t be passed it’s a union between a man an woman. vote no at: http://www.nogaymarriage.com if you oppose also.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:37:14 +0000

Wrong time. Wrong place. Right now, the budget is a mess. He should be focused on fixing that and then maybe he can look at discussing divisive social issues down the road. I can only suspect he is already looking towards shoring up support with his liberal base in case he gets a primary challenge from Andrew Cuomo in the next election.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:20:48 +0000

Paterson wasn’t even elected governor. He has gone way over the line, and there will be suits filed against him.

He has gone around the state legislature and the residents of NY, who have consistently said in polls they oppose gay marriage. Two years ago, the Court of Appeals ruled that it is NOT unconstiutional for NYS to ban gay marriage.

Paterson is not the emperor of NY. As I said, he wasn’t even elected governor. This guy is a loose cannon.

By: WaltTrombone

WaltTrombone — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:59:22 +0000

Actually, Sara, I found out today that the Paterson ruling was precipitated by a successful suit brought against Monroe County and the Community College up there, wherein the court ruled that the college had to extend medical benefits to the spouse of a lesbian married in Canada employed by the college.

Now, as to whether Paterson is overstepping the bounds of the executive branch, I have no opinion on that.

By: Charlotte

Charlotte — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:33:34 +0000

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

By: Sara R

Sara R — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:29:04 +0000

Walt, you ask a fair question. I believe the answer is that because “marriage” is defined in state law, Paterson cannot unilaterally order something not recognized as a legal marriage to be so recognized. In other words, only the legislature can define what a “marriage” is, and if another state defines it differently, New York does not recognize it as such. There is really no danger of the state being sued (successfully) from somebody married outside the state because the power to set rules on things like marriages are reserved to the states under the Constitution, and homosexual marriage has not been recognized as a protected Constitutional right.

What Paterson has done is truly a raw abuse of power, and it is almost certain not to survive a legal challenge.

By: ed

ed — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:07:30 +0000

My problem is, net-net, while yapping about a coming fiscal holocaust, he’s found yet another way to increase spending. He and Silver make a great pair. Silver is shrewd enough to make a personal fortune via his shenanigans; the gov seems to be just a well-meaning dolt.

By: WaltTrombone

WaltTrombone — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:57:59 +0000

It seems to be consistant with NY State recognizing hetero marriages also performed out of state. If they recognize those, then why not gay marriages performed legally out of state? It still doesn’t permit gay marriages here, just recognizes ones performed elsewhere.

If we don’t recognize gay marriages, I think we might be leaving NYS open to lawsuits challenging our recognition of legal hetero marriages performed elsewhere, but not legal gay marriages.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:01:16 +0000

I think this is an end-around not only of the Legislature, but also of the NYS Court of Appeals and of the residents of NY state, who have consistently opposed gay marriage. Paterson thinks he is being slick, but he isn’t.

Paterson has really put himself into hot water here. The state is about broke, but his action will cost the state a lot of money in benefits. This will be a big issue for Republicans and the many others opposed to gay marriage.

By: ed

ed — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:54:34 +0000

This “legal” mandate comes unilaterally from someone who never passed the bar exam.