Let's just hope that the Conservative Party and their ally Roger Adler don't mount another successful challenge against marriage equality in New York State. Now that Adler is running for judge in Brooklyn and wants the support of Democrats, he may choose to distance himself from the Conservative Party this time around. But he wrote an amicus brief against the last marriage equality law for the Conservative Party while also donating to the Conservative Party. So he may come through for them again.

Seems some people are already latching onto the exact arguements used by Roger Adler and the Conservative Party last time around to block marriage equality. According to Salon.com:

The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms says the Democratic governor is circumventing the Legislature and courts and slapping New Yorkers in the face.

Motley says granting government benefits to gay couples will come at a cost to the state even as Paterson calls for cuts in spending because of looming deficits.

The precedent set by Adler and the Conservative Party last time around (separation of powers) will be the basis of this fight as well.

As to Mr. Duane Motley, he is nothing but a full time lobbyist who makes his living off trying to block all rights to homosexuals.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This means that, the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) notwithstanding (because it's clearly unconstitutional), New York and all other states are required to recognize marriages completed in any other state.

So if DOMA is unconstitutional, why hasn't it been struck down? Because it hasn't been challenged. In order to challenge a law, you must be directly affected by that law. In other words, a couple must get married in one state, then move to another state and be denied the full rights of marriage under DOMA. Then, and only then, can DOMA be challenged. Only recently have same-sex marriages begun to be performed in Massachusetts. There was a possible case (I'm not sure where it stands now) where a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts moved to Rhode Island and then filed for divorce. The last I heard, officials in Rhode Island hadn't decided whether to grant it, or deny it because of DOMA.

Governor Paterson is simply upholding the U.S. Constitution, as he pledged to do when he assumed the office of Governor.

and one of the best reasons I can think of to put the State Senate in Democratic hands. We can race NJ for the honor of being the first state to legislate same-sex marriage into being. Then Motley, Adler et al. can start becoming footnotes to history. Decades from now, people will look back on these decisions the way we now look at Loving v. Virginia - with slightly morbid curiosity that there were actually laws on the books based on such bigoted social attitudes.

My (unformed) opinion of Paterson went way up because of this.