In the New York Law Journal:
Mr. Younger [past president of the state bar] said that the "local touch" also was important. He said that Buffalo attorney Vincent Doyle, the current president of the state bar, and Susan Laluk, the outgoing president of the Monroe County Bar had visited Republican James Alesi, who announced his support for the bill last week. Also, Mr. Doyle had visted Republican Mark J. Grisanti, who remained undecided until the last minute but eventually backed the bill. Mr. Grisanti said during the debate that his background as an attorney was important in making his decision. He also cited "research" that showed that civil unions produced chaos rather than full equality, a position that mirrored a conclusion reached by the state bar two years ago.
Finally, Mr. Younger said that he had talked to Poughkeepsie Republican Stephen Saland, another undecided senator, who backed the measure this evening. Messrs. Grisanti and Saland provided the votes that finally put the measure over the top.
10 Comments
See, the lawyers--the ones trained to understand the Constitution and its accompanying jurisprudence--understand that this is an issue of equal protection under the law!!!!
See, the lawyers- the ones indoctrinated in radical secular humanist interpretations of the Constitution and intellectually incapable of withstanding their assault on the foundational concept of the common good- understand that this is an issue of imposing anti-natural law religious dogmas upon even the allegedly Catholic.
Woe, woe, woe to the shepherds.
Just because "some" lawyers agree with same sex marriage does not mean all do.
Also, if "only" lawyers in favor of same sex marriage were provided to advise the Senators, and no lawyers were provided to represent the other side, that seems contrary to the best interests of the people.
Your claim that lawyers "trained to understand the Constitution" support same sex marriage as a group, is also refuted by the fact the majority of courts to consider the issue have rejected a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage
Heidi yes if you bare under the belief the SSMs is a right under the law...That SSM advocates are tryting to say to the general public, we want to do what we want and we want the goverment and the general population to recognize what we want to do as the...that is to change the definision of marriage to include gay marriage because we're no better then heterosexuals. WRONG!
gay and lesbian lifestyle is a danger to humanity, and marriages between the opposite sexes, not equal, m+m=0 m+f=procreation, positive+negative=charge, etc
Under Heidi's argument OJ was innocent. I can't tell if she's playing dumb or actually dumb.
NOM. Why is it that any illiterate supporter of yours can post numerous poorly composed comments on here and I cannot? Are you afraid of thoughtful well reasoned criticism?
OK... now I am permitted to post....go figure... thanks.
No Heidi this proves that lawyers and judges are overstepping their bounds. Their snobbish elitist attitude that we the people do not matter. They think that only they get to pass the laws. Our democracy does not matter.
The New York Bar Association is a political orfanization alligned to push their agenda; much like the APA.