Connect with us

Open Letter To Judge Allowing Challenge To NY Gay Marriage To Go To Trial

Published

on

Scott Rose explores the anti-gay biased  decision by NY Judge Robert B. Wiggins which allows a challenge against New York State’s gay marriage law to go to trial.

 

Hon. Robert B. Wiggins

Multi-Bench Judge for the

County, Family, Surrogate’s and Supreme Courts of the Livingston County Court

2 Court Street

Geneseo, NY 14454

 
 

December 6, 2011

 

In Re: Your Decision and Order, Index No. 807-2011, Challenge to Marriage Equality Act

 
 

Judge Wiggins:

This is to express utmost alarm and dismay over the non-judicial bias and political propaganda that you wrote into your Decision on the challenge to the Marriage Equality Act.

Though a Governor’s certified facts in support of a message of necessity are, as you surely realize, by law not subject to judicial review, you used your Decision document to attack Governor Cuomo for having given – (as his certified facts necessitating an immediate vote on the Marriage Equality Act) — the discrimination suffered by gay couples as a result of marriage discrimination.

You compounded your offense in turning your Decision into a political op-ed by fraudulently accusing governor Cuomo of “arm-twisting” towards the passage of the Marriage Equality Act. It is a fine thing indeed that, although at the end of your Decision, you admitted that you did not have enough facts to determine the separate question of whether there had been a violation of the Open Meetings Law, you found Governor Cuomo guilty of “arm-twisting” in your remarks about his message of necessity, in regard to which the Plaintiffs’ attorney had brought bogus allegations. You did dismiss those bogus allegations, n’est-ce pas?

In your Decision, you exhibited a very definition of bias in a judge, siding with plaintiffs who had brought a legally-invalid allegation and lambasting the Defendants though they had broken no laws. We all know that the U.S. legal system considers people innocent until proven guilty, so why in your Decision did you find our Governor guilty of “arm-twisting,” — if per your own admission you did not have enough facts legally to decide matters? Further on this, you appear to be willfully ignorant of how those Legislators that decided to vote for the Marriage Equality Act — after being undecided — came to support the proposed legislation.

I suggest very strongly that you go to YouTube to view Senator Grisanti’s explanation of how his Catholic upbringing had made him believe same sex marriage was prohibited, but that after meeting over a course of months with people on both sides of the proposed equality law, and reading, and reading legal documents, he concluded that there is no basis in civil law for not giving gay couples their inalienable right to marry. Governor Cuomo did not twist Senator Grisanti’s arm, nor did he twist the arms of the other Senators that decided to vote yes on equality. When you fraudulently declare in a court document that he twisted arms, you are insulting Governor Cuomo, Senator Grisanti and the other Senators that decided to vote yes, and also making clear that you can not be trusted to carry out your judicial duties without political or some other bias. 

An additional irony is that whereas you fraudulently accused Governor Cuomo of arm-twisting to get the Marriage Equality Act passed, two of the Plaintiffs in this case, the theocratic, anti-gay bullying lobbyists Reverends Jason J. McGuire and Duane R. Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, on June 14 sent a violently-worded letter to Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, warning him that if the Marriage Equality Act passed, “the pound of flesh will come from the Republican majority.” How is that for arm-twisting?

Additional aspects of the way you wrote your Decision make it impossible for anybody familiar with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct to trust you to be professional in exercising your judicial duties. And, because your op-ed in opposition to Governor Cuomo’s certified facts in support of the message of necessity reflects indifference and perhaps even sadistic malice towards gay people that suffer from institutionalized discrimination against them, you can not be trusted – ever — to safeguard the rights of LGBT New Yorkers; and this is true in a heightened sense when, in your rotations as a Multi-Bench Judge, you hear cases in Family Court.

If you want to be able to write political op-ed pieces, then you should excuse yourself from the bench and go find editors that want your op-ed pieces. If I saw that you had included such non-judicial, unprofessional writing in a court document on any case whatsoever, I would be equally convinced that you can not be trusted to carry out your duties in accordance with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.

The theocratic, heterosupremacist opponents of marriage equality, thrilled with your Decision, are parroting your fraudulent allegation that Governor Cuomo engaged in “arm-twisting,” but a judge is supposed to exercise his duties impartially, not with an eye to the next judicial nominating process in his county. Shame on you.

Sincerely,

 

Scott Rose

 

cc:

Governor Andrew Cuomo

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos

Senator Thomas Duane

Thomas A. Klonick, Chair, NY Commission on Judicial Conduct

Frank Bruni, The New York Times

Frank Rich, New York Magazine

Evan Wolfson, President, Freedom to Marry

Other community members

 

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Looking to Throw in the Towel?’: Trump Mocked as Administration Again Switches Priorities

Published

on

President Donald Trump is drawing mockery after telling a CBS News reporter that his war in Iran is “very complete, pretty much,” as the administration’s military priorities continue to shift rapidly.

In the early hours of the war, Trump had strongly suggested it was about regime change, only to have his defense secretary days later specifically state it was not.

On Monday, apparently around the time he had a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump said Iran has “no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made similar remarks earlier on Monday.

“The goals of this mission are clear, and it’s important to continue to remind the American people of why it is that the greatest military in history of the world has engaged in this operation,” he told reporters. “It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles, both by destroying their missiles and their launchers. Destroy the factories that make these missiles, and destroy their Navy.”

Days earlier, Trump had called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”

Professor of Strategic Studies Phillips P. O’Brien responded to Rubio’s remarks, saying: “If this is actually the new set of strategic goals, the Trump administration is admitting that they have strategically failed and this has been a disaster.”

Specifically referencing Trump’s remarks to CBS News, Professor O’Brien added, “So is this Trump looking to throw in the towel?”

Foreign policy analyst Jimmy Rushton observed, “No mention of removing the regime. No mention of destroying the Iranian nuclear programme. No mention of destroying Iran’s ability to project power via proxy forces. The administration’s war aims are constantly changing.”

Similarly, political scientist Ian Bremmer noted, “declaring victory and ending war with iran much easier with these goals. not mentioned: -regime change -uranium enrichment/stockpiling -attack drones.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Once Again Directly Contradicts Pentagon Chief on Key Element of Iran War

Published

on

President Donald Trump told CBS News on Monday that his war in Iran could be almost over — just after the Pentagon tweeted, “We have Only Just Begun to Fight.”

“In a phone interview, President Trump told me the war could be over soon,” reported CBS’s Weijia Jiang on Monday afternoon, less than one hour after the social media post. “I think the war is very complete, pretty much. They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force.”

Trump added that the U.S. is “very far” ahead of his initial 4-5 week estimated time frame,” Jiang added.

The Commander-in-Chief’s prediction also came just days after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that this is “just the beginning” of the war in Iran, as The Washington Post’s John Hudson reported.

Earlier on Monday, the Pentagon posted another Iran tweet: “This is just the beginning—we will not be deterred until the mission is over.”

READ MORE: ‘Blatant Racism’: House Republican’s Remarks Spark Backlash

One week ago, after President Trump specifically alluded to the war in Iran being about regime change, Secretary Hegseth declared it was not.

“Trump repeatedly emphasized regime change was a goal — and possibly even the goal,” CNN reported.

“America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force,” Trump said to the Iranian opposition in the early hours of the war. “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

“When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump added. “It will be yours to take.”

Barely days later, Hegseth told reporters, “This is not a so-called regime change war.”

READ MORE: ‘Good Luck in the Midterms’: Anti-Trump Conservatives Smell Weakness in the President

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Tell Me It’s Satire’: WaPo Roasted for Op-Ed Linking Lattes to Destruction of Society

Published

on

Some Washington Post readers are mocking the paper and its op-ed that suggests a link between Starbucks’ lattes, and loneliness and the destruction of society.

The op-ed’s author, professor of politics Jakub Grygiel, writes that the “atomization of society begins with your morning coffee.”

He immediately points out that 46 percent of Americans have had a specialty coffee drink in the past day, and “54 percent of U.S. adults feel isolated and half of them feel bereft of companionship ‘often or some of the time,’ according to the American Psychological Association.”

Grygiel then says that ordering a latte your way is wasting everyone else’s time, which, he surmises, makes you feel lonely.

“As specialty coffee consumption has surged (84 percent since 2011), so has the loneliness epidemic. Just a correlation? Consider what your coffee order reveals,” he suggests.

READ MORE: ‘Blatant Racism’: House Republican’s Remarks Spark Backlash

“The salted caramel mocha latte, the iced brown sugar soy milk shaken espresso, the white chocolate macadamia cream cold brew are the triumph of hyper-individualization over communal norms,” he writes. “When you order a dirty spiced chai with oat milk, you are not only wasting the time of other customers in line but also are signaling that your personal appetites demand an elaborate, customized response. You are asserting your primacy, unique in the complexity of your desires, and stand apart from your nation’s simple rituals. No wonder you’re alone.”

Grygiel makes no mention of the fact that a significant portion of Starbucks’ business model is based on customized coffee drinks.

Some readers slammed Grygiel, with several questioning whether his work was satire.

“This is satire, people. This has to be satire. I know it’s satire. Please tell me it’s satire,” wrote one reader.

Others tried to bring the conversation back to politics, which is the author’s stock in trade.

“The atomization of society begins with you taking about coffee and not the Trump administrations efforts to destabilize our democracy,” chastised another.

READ MORE: ‘Good Luck in the Midterms’: Anti-Trump Conservatives Smell Weakness in the President

“I think the largest problem with American society is all the fascists, but that is just my opinion,” suggested a reader.

“I don’t know,” said another reader. “I think the American obsession with assault rifles and the fact that the number of guns in private hands in America far exceeds the population may be a bigger threat to our society. But that’s just me. I can’t remember the last time a salted caramel mocha latte killed someone.”

Others blasted the paper.

“Here’s some more compelling evidence that we’re confronting the end of days: WaPo is running this fluff piece while Trump is hard at work starting WWIII,” warned a reader.

And while some declared they “agree with every word,” others lamented the “absolute swill coming out of the WaPo opinion section these days.”

“This might be the thing that finally prompts me to cancel my WaPo subscription,” wrote an apparent subscriber.

READ MORE: White House Confirms Trump’s Shift That Pushes SAVE Act Further Right

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.