From the contents of that article, Paterson didn't overstep his authority.
The legislative branch writes the laws. The judicial branch interprets the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws.
In fact, Justice Lucy A. Billings of state Supreme Court in the Bronx has ruled, Mr. Paterson was merely complying with laws passed by that very same Legislature. New York is compelled to honor those marriages, just as it does others legally performed elsewhere, Judge Billings explained.
Thus, Paterson did nothing more than insist that the state follow the laws, as his oath of office requires. I don't see where he exceeded his authority.
Now, the article itself was incomplete to the point of incomprehensibility. What order? What case? Who sued? There's just not enough information to form intelligent conclusions.
actually, i believe that things are much simpler than folk are making it out to be. recognizing marriages from other US states, as i recall, is covered in the 'full faith and credit' clause of the US constitution. basically, if you refuse to recognize another state's marriages, you are refusing to recognize the other state as a legal entity with the power to authorize marriages and such, which would pretty much defeat the purpose of the union.
the other tack is the first amendment. if your faith allows it, with the caveat that there is no demonstrable harm present to any involved persons, who is the government to say that you can't practice your faith?
Comments 4
(The comment has been removed)
The legislative branch writes the laws. The judicial branch interprets the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws.
In fact, Justice Lucy A. Billings of state Supreme Court in the Bronx has ruled, Mr. Paterson was merely complying with laws passed by that very same Legislature. New York is compelled to honor those marriages, just as it does others legally performed elsewhere, Judge Billings explained.
Thus, Paterson did nothing more than insist that the state follow the laws, as his oath of office requires. I don't see where he exceeded his authority.
Now, the article itself was incomplete to the point of incomprehensibility. What order? What case? Who sued? There's just not enough information to form intelligent conclusions.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
actually, i believe that things are much simpler than folk are making it out to be. recognizing marriages from other US states, as i recall, is covered in the 'full faith and credit' clause of the US constitution. basically, if you refuse to recognize another state's marriages, you are refusing to recognize the other state as a legal entity with the power to authorize marriages and such, which would pretty much defeat the purpose of the union.
the other tack is the first amendment. if your faith allows it, with the caveat that there is no demonstrable harm present to any involved persons, who is the government to say that you can't practice your faith?
Reply
Leave a comment