Redefine marriage ... get sued

 

The governor of New York has tried to redefine marriage in the Empire State. For his efforts, he is getting sued. 

 

 

New York Governor David Paterson signed an executive order on May 14 decreeing that all state agencies and programs must recognize same-sex "marriages" that are legally performed in other jurisdictions, even though New York law makes no provision for such partnerships.
 
Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the governor has stepped far beyond the scope of his legitimate authority. "What the governor of New York did was completely illegal because he has no authority to unilaterally redefine marriage," notes the attorney. "It's a complete assault on the people of New York and the democratic process. Marriage is a public policy matter to be decided by the people, not by elite government officials issuing executive edicts," Nimocks explains.
 
Paterson based his order on a lower-court decision in a case that is still under appeal and, therefore, is not binding on the state. ADF, on behalf of lawmakers and taxpayers in New York, has filed suit asking the court to block implementation of the policy. Nimocks says that Paterson, in pursuit of a radical political agenda, may not even realize the effect of his own order.
 
"He's subjected New Yorkers to foreign law in order to impose a radical redefinition of marriage on the people. The end effect here is that he's basically said that New York law on marriage is going to be what any other state or foreign jurisdiction says it is," the ADF attorney contends.
 
Nimocks does not believe Paterson will get away with this political stunt. "What he's done is wrong, and we expect the court to set him right because there is a separation of powers in this country. He's only the executive branch. It's the prerogative of the people and the legislative branch to set policy for their state," Nimocks says.
 
Paterson's decree came on the heels of a California Supreme Court decision legalizing marriages between people of the same sex. Pro-family advocates expect hundreds of homosexual activists to travel to the West Coast, get "married," and then return home to sue their respective states when they are denied the same benefits as legitimately married heterosexual couples. That could begin as early as next week -- the Golden State is due to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples at 5:00 p.m. (Pacific) on Monday, June 16.

liberal politicans and judges just love to cross the line, abuse the authority that they don't have to push their liberal agendas

And our "conservative" administration doesn't?  Each side is as bad as the other.

---

Dyne said: And our "conservative" administration doesn't?  Each side is as bad as the other.

 

Conservatives are the lesser of the two evils, by far. 

---

well, no much politicians now really play by the rule and serve people.

Many of them just go for fame and power, by whatever means necessary. 

One wonders why no one in office understands the problem & simple solution.

1) every state has "partnership" legal concepts, those include POA etc, they can or could include Next of kin for children, inheritance etc. Simple legal procedures. They are in place.

2) Marriage is a SACRAMENT, it is & must be defined by the religious communities.

3) the state & federal govt should NOT ever issue a "marriage" permit. rather allow, encourage the Nextofkin partnership.

 

Unfortuantely the churches in America have by default given over to the states control of their sacrament of Marriage.. Will Callif next define & pass laws on salvation??

get the government at all levels out of YOUR religion.  If some odd-ball cult wants to have "ceremonies" sanctifing, those people to have religiouus sanctioned sex(&that is half their goal), then why should us normal folks care. 

 BUT no the state etc  should NOT have a law defining such as a marriage.  there should be NO connection between any religious service & any state function, permit. licence etc.  Did we not put that in the CONSTITUTION