By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS1 minute ago
The ruling paves the way for California to become the second state where gay men and lesbians can marry.
Text of the Opinion
By ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press WriterTue Feb 5, 6:42 AM ET
LOS ANGELES – Environmental groups seeking to protect whales from the potentially harmful effects of sonar cheered a legal victory against the Navy and the Bush administration.
U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled Monday that the Navy is not exempt from complying with both the National Environmental Policy Act and a court injunction that created a 12 nautical-mile no-sonar zone off Southern California.
“It’s an excellent decision,” said Joel Reynolds, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is spearheading the legal fight. “It reinstates the proper balance between national security and environmental protection.”
Scientists have said loud sonar can damage the brains and ears of marine mammals, and may mask the echoes from natural sonar that someuse to locate food.
The president signed a waiver Jan. 15 exempting the Navy and its anti-submarine warfare exercises from the injunction, arguing they are vital to the nation’s national security.
“We disagree with the judge’s decision,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Monday. “We believe the orders are legal and appropriate.”
The judge also said she has “significant concerns about the constitutionality of the President’s exemption,” but that “a finding on this issue is not necessary” to reinstate the sonar injunction.
Read entire article on current conflict between executive and judicial branches of Federal Government. Note issues of judicial review and constitutionality.
“[A]bsent any New York statute expressing clearly the Legislature’s intent to regulate within this State marriages of its domiciliaries solemnized abroad, there is no positive law in this jurisdiction” to prohibit recognition of a marriage that would have been invalid if solemnized in New York (May, 305 NY at 493 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Van Voorhis, 86 NY at 37). The Legislature has not enacted legislation to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered into outside of New York, and we thus conclude that the positive law exception to the general rule of foreign marriage recognition is not applicable in this case.
The natural law exception also is not applicable. That exception has generally been limited to marriages involving polygamy or incest or marriages “offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded generally with abhorrence” (May, 305 NY at 493), and that cannot be said here.
Defendants nevertheless contend that recognition of plaintiff’s same-sex marriage is contrary to the public policy of New York, as articulated by the Court of Appeals in Hernandez v Robles (7 NY3d 338), and thus falls within an exception to the rule requiring recognition of valid foreign marriages. We reject that contention. Hernandez does not articulate the public policy for which it is cited by defendants, but instead holds merely that the New York State Constitution does not compel recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized in New York (see id. at 356). The Court of Appeals noted that the Legislature may enact legislation recognizing same-sex marriages (see id. at 358-359) and, in our view, the Court of Appeals thereby indicated that the recognition of plaintiff’s marriage is not against the public policy of New York. It is also worth noting that, unlike the overwhelming majority of states, New York has not chosen, pursuant to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (28 USC § 1738C), to enact legislation denying full faith and credit to same-sex marriages validly solemnized in another state.