New York Court: State must recognize foreign same-sex "marriages"
A New York appellate court has ruled that the state must recognize foreign same-sex "marriages." The How Appealing blog links to several articles reporting on the situation as well as the ruling in Martinez v. County of Monroe, No. 1562, CA 06-02591 (N.Y. App. Feb. 1, 2008). An excerpt from the opinion:
For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the “positive law” of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of “natural law” . . . Thus, if a marriage is valid in the place where it was entered, “it is to be recognized as such in the courts of this State, unless contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute” . . . Under that “marriage-recognition” rule, New York has recognized a marriage between an uncle and his niece “by the half blood” . . . , common-law marriages valid under the laws of other states . . . , a marriage valid under the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada of a man and a woman both under the age of 18 . . . , and a “proxy marriage” valid in the District of Columbia . . . , all of which would have been invalid if solemnized in New York. We conclude that plaintiff’s marriage does not fall within either of the two exceptions to the marriage-recognition rule. “[A]bsent any New York statute expressing clearly the Legislature’s intent to regulate within this State marriages of its domiciliaries solemnized abroad, there is no positive law in this jurisdiction” to prohibit recognition of a marriage that would have been invalid if solemnized in New York . . . The Legislature has not enacted legislation to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered into outside of New York, and we thus conclude that the positive law exception to the general rule of foreign marriage recognition is not applicable in this case. The natural law exception also is not applicable. That exception has generally been limited to marriages involving polygamy or incest or marriages “offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded generally with abhorrence” . . . , and that cannot be said here.
6 Comments
Did not the state of New York accept DOMA?
No. You can learn more about New York’s status here:
http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/newyork/index.html
A same-sex “marriage” bill is pending in the NY legislature.
To say that so called same sex “marriage” does not violate natural law is absurd. Natural law is in accordance with “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” referenced in our foundational Declaration of Independence. Whereby God’s natural law clearly establishes marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, and clearly prohibits same sex relations.
I agree with Rod Schull. I submit that the Natural Law Exception is applicable in this case. Homosexuality is unnatural and an affront to our Heavenly Father, the One for whom and by whom we were created. The Court’s opinion here is ludicrous and abhorrent. Homosexuality is not God’s design for humanity. “If homosexuality were inherited it would tend to be eliminated from the human gene pool because those who have it tend not to reproduce”. “No respected geneticists in the world today would claim to have found a so-called “gay gene” or other indicators of genetic transmission. It seems that our Courts too have caved under the pressure of public opinion and politically motivated “disinformation” regarding the practice of homosexuality. It’s just more of the same – the marketing of homosexuality (even from the Bench) as morally acceptable. Shame on the Judges who ruled on this case!
This judge is clearly an activist in favor of so called, “same sex marriage”. The is completely contrary to natural law that for this judge not to recognize that is ridiculous. Nature is evident in that man and man can not reproduce and the same goes for women. Either the judge in this case is an idiot or he is completely brainwashed. In either case he should be disqualified from the bench and removed immediately.
Even if you take religion out of this argument it is still unnatural. Common sense should be enough to make a judge who is supposed to be highly intelligent recognize that the whole idea of two people of the same sex getting married is ridiculous and totally apart from nature. Homosexuality is a mental problem in most cases and in many it is a hormonal imbalance that should be treatable. Money should be spent on isolating where this unnatural condition starts and provide therapy to those that are afflicted with it.
One Trackback
[...] Our earlier report on the decision with opinion excerpts is here. [...]