NY Supremes court righteousness, toss attempts to bastardize it
We've just received word from our friends at the Empire State Pride Agenda that the New York state Supreme Court has upheld the state comptroller' 2004 decision to treat out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples the same as any other legal marriage in terms of benefits afforded to state employees through the New York State Retirement System.
A decision that is ironically satisfying on a personal level, as we were just asking ourselves this morning, "Self -- why the heck did we choose to plant this site's roots here in NY rather than, say, Little Rock?" So thanks, state officials and judges, for reminding us why the heck societal progression and non-hostile governance seem far more likely here than in many of our other great states (even if we do have a ways to go before we're fully equal)!
What's even more lovely about the decision is that in casting it, the court dismissed a challenge from the militantly anti-gay legal beagles at the Alliance Defense Fund. And considering their nonstop attempts to foist their one-sided, Biblical-based anti-gay lifestyles onto society, any of their court losses make us squeal with delight!
So all in all -- a very nice development along the Empire State's inevitable granting of marriage equality to gays (be they state employees or not). Here's just hoping that by the time any gay person under that age of 50 60 62 64.5 reaches the common time of retirement, such non-issues will become non-debatatable.
McNamara Decision and Order.pdf McNamara Decision (pdf) [Empire State Pride Agenda]
Note that the New York Supreme Court is the lowest court of general jusrisdiction in the state, not, as one would assume. the highest. This decision is a trial court decision, not the affirmation by the highest court (the New York Court of Appeals). A common mistake.
Posted by: Jim Kellogg | Sep 12, 2007 3:11:58 PM
Jim: Yes, you are correct. And not sure if you are implying that we made a mistake by implying otherwise, but we certainly didn't mean to do so.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 12, 2007 3:15:23 PMcomments powered by Disqus