[Promoted from the diaries by DavidNYC. As Dan notes, there were a couple of diarists who broke the news first, so props to those eagle-eyed Kossacks. But I appreciate Dan's legal analysis, so his gets the nod. Edited very slightly.]
Update [2005-2-4 15:24:47 by DavidNYC]: [I should have made this clear at the outset: As someone in the comments pointed out, the New York State Supreme Court is actually the lowest - ie, trial-level - court in the state. This decision is appealable and I presume will be appealed. NY's highest court is called the Court of Appeals.]
There have been a couple of diaries about the historic (and beautifully written) decision from NY State Supreme Court in New York County (hey, that's Manhattan!). I thought I would add my two cents as a lawyer.
After reading the court's decision, I'm totally happy.
You can find Lambda Legal's press release here.
They held a press conference at 1:30, but I'm stuck in my cubicle and can't watch. Did anyone see it?
You can find a copy of the decision here (PDF).
More after the jump.
The remedy that the court found was to obliterate any remaining gender-based terms in the marriage law and to order the county clerk to issue a marriage license.
Basically, the court found the county clerk's failure to issue same sex couples a marriage license to be in violation of the plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the New York constitution (it's stronger than the U.S. Constitution, as are many state constitutions when it comes to individual rights). It's a beautifully written and exhaustively researched decision, much like the Goodridge decision from the wise judges in Massachusetts. Like Goodridge, the judge seems to have covered all the usual arguments against same sex marriage. She called the "historical" argument out as non-legal grounds to overturn these people's constitutional rights.
Here's my favorite part... the remedy:
Accordingly, the words "husband", "wife", "groom", and "bride" as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse," and all personal pronouns are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women.
While I don't think any decision is ever "appeal proof," this one seems to be wearing it's armor plating pretty well. Whoever wants to appeal this has their work cut out for them.
As for amending the state constitution., it's anybody's guess. Anybody know anything about NY Constitutional amendments?