Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Gay Marriage In New Paltz 68

Journal by pudge

It took me awhile to find it -- after reading a dozen stories and even watching an interview by Katie Couric of the New Paltz, NY mayor this morning, this important detail was not mentioned -- but the criminal charges against the mayor have nothing directly to do with marrying gay people, they have to do with the fact that no marriage licenses were granted.

Most stories mentioned the charges were for performing marriages without a license, but they didn't explain what it meant; I assumed, incorrectly, it meant that gay marriage licenses were invalid. But what it meant is that the town clerk did not issue licenses. They never existed in any form. When this mayor said he did nothing wrong -- as he has been doing -- he is either incompetent, or lying.

You can make the argument that gay marriage in NY is legal; I don't know if that's true or not, I've heard opinions both ways, with no facts to back it up (facts with links are welcome!). But that isn't the issue here.

You could also try to say the clerk should have issued the licenses, but that doesn't take away the mayor's culpability in his illegal acts; further, the clerk -- according to the story -- didn't issue the licenses because the clerk believed to do so may violate the law. Until such time as the state makes a definitive ruling, a clerk choosing to not take action which may violate the law is perfectly valid and reasonable. It would be different if this were May in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court has ruled that gay marriage licenses will begin to be issued. There is no such ruling here, and while you can make the case that such licenses in NY are legal, it's harder to make the case to a public official that they are not illegal, that the clerk is taking on no liability for themselves.

Bottom line: the state of New York has not, and should and at some point will, clarify the state law on this matter; in the meantime, forcing clerks to issue such licenses is unreasonable; and in any event, marriages without licenses are illegal.

Oh, and reporters who left out the part about the town clerk are stupid.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gay Marriage In New Paltz More

Gay Marriage In New Paltz

Comments Filter:
  • I remember on slashdot with the 10 commandments case in the south, folks were crying for blood from the chief justice because he was breaking the law. Where is the cries of outrage now?

    *sigh*

    • He wasn't just breaking the law, he was flouting the constitution. Recent court rulings suggest the constitution may be on the mayor's side, although I agree that he should have foud a way to issue licenses first.

      What I want to know: was the mayor acting out of conscience, or was he trying to bring publicity to himself and his town? After all, gay tourism is big bucks.

      • He wasn't just breaking the law, he was flouting the constitution

        No, he was following what his interpretation of the constition was, as are these public officials. These officials are taking the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, as was Judge Moore.

        Recent court rulings suggest the constitution may be on the mayor's side

        Which ones? The only one I'm familiar with is the Massachusettes Supreme Court, which was ruling on their state constitution, which means about as much in N

        • No, he was following what his interpretation of the constition was, as are these public officials.

          I don't believe that for a minute. Sure, that's what he said, but really he wants the wall of separation to come down.

          Which ones? The only one I'm familiar with is the Massachusettes Supreme Court, which was ruling on their state constitution, which means about as much in New York as the constition of Iraq when it's finished. :-)

          I did use the word "suggest." No doubt this will go to court in other states

          • Oh, and look at this Supreme Court case [cornell.edu] from 1996.

          • It may seem that the 14th amendment might apply to gay marriage, but remember that Utah was kept from being a state because of polygamous marriages, so there is precedent for legislating marriage practices. Some might (and I do) say that this is exactly the same thing: individuals, doing what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes, &c. Who says that a second wife or third husband should receive fewer state-sponsored benefits than a first wife and first husband? The government, apparently

            • I don't believe that polygamy between consenting adults should be illegal, but it seems to me that prohibiting polygamy passes the "equal protection" test, since NO ONE is allowed to have more than one spouse.

              • I don't believe that polygamy between consenting adults should be illegal, but it seems to me that prohibiting polygamy passes the "equal protection" test, since NO ONE is allowed to have more than one spouse.

                Well, no one is prohibiting from marrying someone of the opposite sex. The only discrimination that is occuring is one of gender, and that kind of discrimination occurs all the time in government.

                • But you have to have a rational basis [cornell.edu] to discriminate. Prohibitions against gay marriage have no such basis, and so don't pass that test.

                  I have no axe to grind here - I am straight and married, and don't know or care why gay people want to get married - but I believe they have the right to do so if they choose. It's an issue of freedom and fairness. I'm sure they can't make any more of a mess of it than we straights have.

                  • Re:Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                    But you have to have a rational basis [cornell.edu] to discriminate. Prohibitions against gay marriage have no such basis, and so don't pass that test.

                    And what is the rational basis for excluding polygamy? Every argument I hear is essentially the same as the ones against gay marriage, except for one: it makes legal proceedings (divorce, etc.) more complicated. But that just means the legal system must adapt, as it is no reason to discriminate against someone.

                    • Because polygamy prohibition doesn't discriminate against any group.

                      That said, laws against polygamy have no rational basis in my opinion. And no, envy is not a rational basis.

                      It is a naturally self-limiting practice, given the human sex ratio, our natural history as serial monagamists and the challenges of having just one wife.

                    • Because polygamy prohibition doesn't discriminate against any group.

                      Uh, apart from polygamists, you mean? Maybe you mean a group of people who are "born" a certain way; but even if I were to accept that people are "born" gay (huge can of worms that isn't really relevant, so for the sake of argument I'll concede it), how is that any better than discriminating against someone's religion, such as with "traditionalist" Mormons?

                      That said, laws against polygamy have no rational basis in my opinion.

                      If gay m
                    • If gay marriage is to be allowed, I agree, the arguments against polygamy become nonsense,

                      Not to mention "marriages" between adult siblings. Even if you buy the argument about genetic defects (which is garbage, but let's buy it for a moment), if gay marriage is allowed, do we allow sisters to marry? or brothers? After all, we don't have to worry about reproduction in those cases.

                      If the thought weirds you out, then you need to rethink why the social taboo of homosexual marriage is on the decline wh

                    • The reason for the universality of the incest taboo is that it does allow recessive genes a great probability of being expressed, and this can and does lead to a higher proportion of genetic diseases. It doesn't have to be siblings - just any close-knit population. The reason nature selected sexual reproduction in the first place was to exploit the diversity it allows, and thus from a gene's eye view the odds of surviving diseases and parasites.

                      That said, I see no reason to prohibit adult incest in law.

                    • Another one that I've come up with is incestual marriage. Why are two people, in a loving, long-term, committed relationship barred from the legal benefits of marriage just because they are brother and sister? If someone can (somehow) make the argument that two is okay, but three is not, then where do they stand on incestual marriage?

                      All of these are logical steps.
                    • The reason for the universality of the incest taboo is that it does allow recessive genes a great probability of being expressed

                      That CAN'T be the "reason" for the incest taboo. That taboo existed long before genetic problems were diagnosed.

                      The other suppositions your use are also similiarly flawed. Nature doesn't "select sexual reproduction" unless you view Nature as some sort of god. Sexual reproduction is the way things have worked out, but I wouldn't say that nature "selected" it. And in any ca

                    • No, that's how nature works, for real. If it makes you more comfortable, consider "Nature" a metaphor or abstraction. Use of natural language requires figures of speech for highly complex phenomena. I use cranes, but no skyhooks.

                      There are lots of different reproductive strategies. Different coalitions of genes have adopted them some as historical accident or random luck, but all because they have succeeded - they have been SELECTED - i.e. the strategies that don't work as well are no longer around.

                    • First, my apologies with respect to language - although I did mention in my comment that it was just me being picky.

                      But as for my arguement being a non-sequitur (which also mentioned in my comment), I was simply responding to YOUR comment that THE REASON that the incest taboo exists is due to our knowledge of genetics. That was your claim when you said: The reason for the universality of the incest taboo is that it does allow recessive genes a great probability of being expressed.

                      I was trying to say
                    • it does allow recessive genes a great probability of being expressed, and this can and does lead to a higher proportion of genetic diseases.

                      And has an equal probability of creating a higher proportion of people who are genetically resitant to diseases. All a close-knit population does is start to cause genetic extremes to crop up more often - at both ends of the scale.

                      Getting back to the original issue - I believe you will find that a larger proportion of the population would say that incestual marriage

                    • Then back to English 101 with you - read the quote exactly: "The Reason for the UNIVERSALITY of the Incest Taboo..." The justification that a particular pre-scientific culture might hold for the taboo is not addressed or particularly relevant.

                    • Then back to English 101 with you - read the quote exactly: "The Reason for the UNIVERSALITY of the Incest Taboo..." The justification that a particular pre-scientific culture might hold for the taboo is not addressed or particularly relevant.

                      I took that into account. Which cultures, exactly, were not opposed to incest at any point in history? The universality of the taboo existed before ANY of the culture knew anything about gentics.

                  • Prohibitions against gay marriage have no such basis, and so don't pass that test

                    There is basis for such prohibition, it's just usually ignored by those who are for gay marriage. I'm working on collecting my thoughts on the matter and hope to publish a JE about it all soon, since most of my thoughts on the subject are strewn throughout various discussions.

                    • I am not "for" gay marriage. I'd be perfectly content if no gay people ever got married. But, if they want to, I see no basis for denying them the right to do so.

                      My question is: why do people feel threatened by gay marriage? Why would they care? Gay brides aren't going to abduct your children or subvert the Bill of Rights. And I'm sure they'll have really, really nice weddings.


                    • And I'm sure they'll have really, really nice weddings.

                      Holy crap, that's really funny.

                      It's not about feeling "threatened", it's about feeling like it is important to give special status to the traditional family unit that has served as the basic unit of our society.

                    • It's not about feeling "threatened", it's about feeling like it is important to give special status to the traditional family unit that has served as the basic unit of our society.

                      Well, the other component -- which I've mentioned in previous journal entries -- is that there is a direct link between civil marriage and social marriage. Civil marriage exists only to recognize existing social marriages. And because there was previously only one kind of marriage (for the most part), people see them as indist
                • This basic argument was used by Texas in last summer's sodomy case before the Supreme Court. They said the anti-sodomy laws were not discriminatory because they did not prevent gay people from having heterosexual sex, and they also made sodomy illegal for heterosexual people. The argument failed.

              • Re:Constitution (Score:2, Interesting)

                by nandorman ( 742258 )
                It's all a matter of interpretation. It seems to me that just as "no one is allowed to have more than one spouse," I can just as easily say "no one is allowed to have a spouse of the same gender." No discrimination since the law applies equally to everyone, right?

                • IANAL, but I don't believe the case law is that simplistic.

                  • The major problem with looking at case law from this argument's standpoint is that polygamy has been against the law and nearly extinct for so long that the case law is outdated. I know that "outdated case law" might not seem like a phrase that ought ever apply to our system of justice, but so much case law with respect to homosexuality has been pronounced in the last decade that it is hard to compare homosexual case law to polygamy case law. The one is so modern and the other so ancient that the two sets

                    • Maybe you're right - prohibiting polygamy IS unconstitutional. I've got no problem with repealing the laws against it if it is..

          • I don't believe that for a minute. Sure, that's what he said, but really he wants the wall of separation to come down.

            That's because his interpretation of the constition doesn't include a "seperation of church and state". I don't see those words in there anywhere either.

            But regardless, my point was that people are cheering on these officials because they are being guided by their "conscience" and their own interpretation of the law. I strongly disagree with cheering on the executive branch both open

            • Not those exact words, but that was the intent [adl.org] of the framers [tripod.com]. They had seen the horrors of religious intolerance and an official state religion, and were having none of that. Absolutely none. The only way to assure this is to build a wall of separation (call it what you like).

              • That's bogus. The framers you cite favored public religious instruction in schools, prayer in Congress and the Supreme Court, religious sentiments on government buildings, and more. To say the intended a complete wall of separation is entirely ludicrous.

                • No it's not. They knew they weren't going to get there over night, but Madison used the phrase "perfect seperation."

                  • That's one man, yes. George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

                    Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."

                    John Jay said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege a
                • >To say the intended a complete wall of separation is entirely ludicrous.

                  Or perhaps they were just religious? I know whenever my religious Uncle gets a hold of ideas, they always get pretty Jesus'd up. Suddenly the physics of the big bang becomes a giant clap of thunder and lightning sent by God. Hey that's fine by me, but his theories don't affect anyone. What if he was a judge, or a mayor?

                  I find that it is not ludicrous to have a non-permiable wall between church and state.

                  Keep the church out of sta
                  • Or perhaps they were just religious?

                    How does that change anything I've said?

                    I find that it is not ludicrous to have a non-permiable (sic) wall between church and state.

                    I am talking about the intent of the people who wrote, passed, and ratified the First Amendment, not about what you or I or anyone else today thinks we should have, so your opinions about what the division SHOULD be are beside the point entirely.

                    Science explains things with clarity. Religion explains things as mystery. The two combine
                    • >You grossly misunderstand both science and religion.

                      Perhaps, but doesn't everyone? I mean, who truly understands science or religion?

                      Science, from what I can tell, seeks to discover the mysteries of the universe, correct?

                      Religion, from what I can tell, seeks to provide divine interpretation of the mysteries of the universe, correct?

                      How is that un-parallel with anything I've said? Am I incorrect? Does my opinion have any weight?
                    • Science, from what I can tell, seeks to discover the mysteries of the universe, correct?

                      Only some of them.

                      Religion, from what I can tell, seeks to provide divine interpretation of the mysteries of the universe, correct?

                      Not my religion, no.

                      A more accurate way of putting it is that science seeks to explain the physical, and religion the metaphysical. There is some crossover: religion certainly can be instructive in interpretations of the physical, and the scientific method can be applied to inquiries
                    • I can't judge whether your opinion holds weight or not, since I haven't really been following this thread closely, but as a scientist I can answer regarding science and religion. Perhaps a good way to make the distinction is to say that religion looks to explain first causes, and science never does. A scientist understands that there will always be a cause deeper than the one he can even possibly achieve.

                      One example:
                      Why does a ball bounce? Gravity causes it to fall, hit the earth, and rebound.

                      Why d
                    • >A more accurate way of putting it is that science seeks to explain the physical, and religion the metaphysical.

                      I would disagree with religion describing the metaphysical only. Primarily religion is about enforcing moral code for many religions, and also envisioning the creation of the universe, which is physical. My point was that religion doe not rely on any fact whatsoever -- just stories, as far as I can tell. There is no evidence. Only faith... and that's with *all* religion.

                      So have faith and send
                    • I would disagree with religion describing the metaphysical only.

                      Disagree with whom? I wrote, There is some crossover. I was very explicit that neither is entirely exclusive to one domain or the other.

                      Primarily religion is about enforcing moral code for many religions, and also envisioning the creation of the universe, which is physical.

                      That's false. Religion is primarily about understanding the metaphysical, which has relation to the physical. The creation of the universe is an extremely minor par
                    • >And moral codes are primarily metaphysical: what is morality? What are right and wrong? What are the consequences and rewards for how we live our life, after death?

                      You do blow my mind, pudge! Morality is metaphysical, is what you're saying. The thought that metaphysical concepts are a) fleeting b) abstract, leads me to the thought that morality is also fleeting, which for the most part is true, if only in the sense that morality changes each year.

                      Religion has been misused more often than not in order
                    • To further understand you, are you saying that because there is Time, and all people have to remain in Time, they can not possibly see anything beyond Time, to get to the truth? They can only take segments and discuss them? That they can never see the forest for the trees?

                      That's what I gathered from what you're saying, and it's quite an interesting thought. I shall savour it for some Time and see where it leads! :-)

                      Here's one for you... if you take an observation and conduct research in Time on your obser
                    • To further understand you, are you saying that because there is Time, and all people have to remain in Time, they can not possibly see anything beyond Time, to get to the truth? They can only take segments and discuss them? That they can never see the forest for the trees?

                      Actually, that's not too bad. Back in the early part of the 20th century, a mathematician named Godel (made famous by the book Godel, Ecsher, Bach) was actually able to prove that you can never prove any mathematical concept in any ma
                    • Morality is metaphysical, is what you're saying

                      According to almost all religions, yes.

                      The thought that metaphysical concepts are a) fleeting b) abstract

                      Those are opinions, ones few religions share. Indeed, many religions think metaphysical concepts are far less fleeting than are phsyical ones, that they existed before the physical world we know, and will persist beyond it. And "abstract" is in the eye of the beholder: have you ever seen a quantum particle?

                      if only in the sense that morality changes
                    • >So if you buy everything I've said so far, we will always be part of our own experiment, and we will never be able to observe outside of the temporal universe.

                      Ah yes, but we are travellers, are we not? We could possibly travel outside of our own time, to another type of neutral time/space that might enable us to extrapolate answers from "without time". These neutral-temporal answers likely exist in deep space, so I'll see you in another 10,000 years. :-)
                    • >Indeed, many religions think metaphysical concepts are far less fleeting than are phsyical ones

                      Most religions beleive that moral decay is all around us, but if we hold true to their religion, we can be "saved". The adaptation to metaphysical from physical is the function of many religions... to adhere to the code of conduct of a church or temple, would enable a person to pass into infinity posivitely in the after-life. And some believe that if you're not a member of their specific religion, you're goin
                    • Most religions beleive that moral decay is all around us, but if we hold true to their religion, we can be "saved". The adaptation to metaphysical from physical is the function of many religions...

                      The essential component of Christianity has nothing to do with the physical; even Catholics believe we are saved by faith, not by works or deeds. So yes, to be saved you must adhere to Christianity (according to Christianity), but that means having metaphysical faith, not performing physical deeds.

                      And some be
                    • We could possibly travel outside of our own time, to another type of neutral time/space that might enable us to extrapolate answers from "without time".

                      But by definition, if we travel anywhere else, then that place/time is NOT outside of our place/time. "Outside" is a place we can't get. If we can reach it, then the over-arching set of rules are the the same. For instance, if we could travel to "another universe" where gravity were repulsive instead of attractive, then that isn't a "new" rule. All we

              • I'm not so interested in the intent of the framers, because it seems as though people pick and choose when they care about the intent of the framers. It doesn't seem all that relevant to society.

                Personally, I think their intent, and how we should read the First Amendment is such:

                1) The federal government (Congress specifically in this case) cannot create an official national religion.

                2) The federal government cannot interfere with the practices of religion.

                Ultimately, by describing the first ame

                • It's a one-way wall.

                  And even then, it was a low wall. Imagine trying to explain to the Founders that funds designed to help those in need -- such as the poor -- should not be given to religious charities, only secular ones. I still don't understand that one. Some people say, well, you are funding evangelism! And when they say, no, there will be no evangelism, they cry, well, you are freeing up other funds they can use for evangelism! But these same people rarely, if ever, have a problem giving govern
  • but very nice job picking up the ball and filling in a crucial gap.

    That information is just a wee bit important.

    I wonder how the Daily Show will cover it...
  • It's possible that the Mayor didn't think the licenses would be issued, or that the licenses were refused in one case, leading Gays to believe the system would not permit them to get hitched.

    There's so much apathy towards them in the gov't, and when your government works against your best interest day-in, day-out, you tend to get your own apathy, IMHO.

    They get married without licenses because they are positive they can't get them, right?
    • They get married without licenses because they are positive they can't get them, right?

      You're saying they felt the lack of licenses was indicative of a violation of rights, justifying breaking the law by having marriages without them? Well, that's what I am saying: the law was broken regardless, though the mayor asserts it wasn't.

      And yes, right now they could not get the licenses, but I don't see that as material. This is a major issue in the state, as with many states, and at some point they are going

      • the law was broken regardless

        In what sense? No licenses, no marriage; no marriage, no law. Or am I missing something?

        • He performed civil marriage ceremonies without the couples having marriage licenses. That's a crime.

          Donald Williams, Ulster County District Attorney: "It is a crime for any public official to preside over a marriage when the participants do not have a license."

          Raymond Zappone, New Paltz Police Chief: "I just delivered to the mayor a criminal summons charging him with violation of the NY State Domestic Relation Law, article 17. There are 19 counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license."
          • >He performed civil marriage ceremonies without the couples having marriage licenses. That's a crime.

            IANAL, but... because the people involved are not giving licenses to Gays, they could justify it as being a protest of laws forbidding Gay marriage (amendment issues?), and be cleared in an objective court.
            • IANAL, but... because the people involved are not giving licenses to Gays, they could justify it as being a protest of laws forbidding Gay marriage (amendment issues?), and be cleared in an objective court.

              No. Protesting is not a defense of criminal activity. You've got it backward: an objective court would be unswayed by such a goal and only care about the fact that a crime was committed. A subjective court might think the goal was worthwhile and ignore the law. Perhaps by "objective" you meant "not
              • In this case, Gays == Blacks in the same kind of legal way, from what I can tell. When human rights are being violated by the laws of the land, humans have a right to fight back for their rights. If the ban on Gay marriage is found to be unconsitutional, then the whole group is vindicated. Because I'm not a lawyer, I know that I don't have a leg to stand on no matter what I say, but it's my thought/belief that both sides would have a strong case, and this is no cake-walk for either side. It's a quagmire, it
                • In this case, Gays == Blacks in the same kind of legal way, from what I can tell.

                  Nope. It's similar, but also very different, for many reasons. The most obvious is that gays are not discriminated against NEARLY to the degree blacks were, and the comparison is laughable at best and extremely offensive at worst, but there are others.

                  If the ban on Gay marriage is found to be unconsitutional, then the whole group is vindicated.

                  Again, that shows a lack of understanding of the law. If gay marriage bans a

          • I expected something of the sort. My question was out of curiosity, not for argument's sake. Thanks for the clarification.

  • Excellent investigation and reporting.

    I haven't taken a fore or against stance on this issue but I know it is an area where the terms "married" and "marriage" do not have that "seperation of church and state" that our country is founded on (for its good and bad). So problems are going to arrise by both groups. And by that I mean those that see this as primarily a benefits issue and those that feel this is an "in the eyes of God" issue.

    I think this particular issue comes down to the elusive "who knew/said/

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That somehow we've been to ambigious to nail down that marriage is a man-woman relationship.

    I invite you to open up the states law code and (while I'm not a Lawyer) see if you find what I see.

    The example here is Oregon where another rogue has decided the law is ambigious enough to issue marriage liscences. You'd think there was nothing there to stop her right? I say, wrong.

    Here is the legal code in question. [state.or.us]

    On the surface .010 is ambigious when it says, "Marriage is a civil contract entered into...by
  • I live between NYC and New Paltz and have a few more points to add based on the coverage I've heard and read.

    1) I heard on radio (but haven't seen in print) that the town clerk wouldn't issue a license due to NY State Health Department guidelines that indicate a marriage license should not be issued to gay couples. The guidelines are apparently administrative interpretations of legal code in the absense of defining legislative guidance.

    2) In the last 24 hours, the NY attorney general Elliot Spitzer (yes,
    • Yeah, Spitzer's ruling just means there is no way, now, the clerk will issue licenses, unless a court rules otherwise. As to point 3 ... that seems exceedingly odd. As best I can tell, no marriage actually took place. I can understand that a marriage would not be automatically voided, but it seems to me it is not a marriage to begin with.

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close