Goddamnit. So Justice Robert B. Wiggins of the State Supreme Court of Livingston County New York decided that the ironically named New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (for straight people only) can proceed with their case seeking to overturn the equal marriage law passed this June and nullify marriages granted under it.
The case seems to hinge entirely upon the argument that Governor Cuomo and possibly Mayor Bloomberg violated the state's Open Meetings Law while discussing the bill with the Republican caucus at the Executive Mansion and the Capitol. Who would have thought that a threat to the legality of same-sex couples getting married in New York state would come from implications that Republicans legislators participated in bending the rules to get the bill passed?
Towelroad is saying that the Judge was pessimistic about the lawsuit's prospects, but I don't know where they're getting that insight. However, they did provide this perspective on the claim regarding Open Meetings Laws:
some meetings were indeed private. But, the open meetings law does not
explicitly require that every meeting of more than one person be open to
every Joe, Tim, and Sally who's interested. Nor is it meant to uproot
the entire legislative process. To invalidate one law on the grounds
that some people conducted some closed door meetings would set a
dangerous precedent that could invalidate nearly every law Albany
passes, including every budget since the 1950s, the law that sent
computer money to certain public schools, and the law that named a state
building after the Rev. Diaz.
Another point of the case is that Cuomo violated the constitution by failing to hold the bill for three days before the legislature voted on it. However, this requirement can be dismissed if the legislation requires immediate emergency action. The Governor used admittedly flimsy logic to certify that the bill required an immediate vote, and it appears that the Judge has ruled that the Governor followed procedure and the charge has no merit.
Reverend Jason J. McGuire (pictured,
nice face), executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, stated in response to the ruling:
“We have said all along that we look forward to our day in court. Now we will have it. The legality of our legislative process must be protected.”
I just have one question, why is it judicial activism when gays
get rights through the courts, but justice when conservatives seek to take rights
away from gays through the courts.
[
NY Times]
"The whole might of American wealth and technology is displayed as utterly unable to deal with the disastrous spill - so what more natural than a crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political Presidential petulance against a multinational company?"
