Friday, May 16, 2014

Homosexual bettors in NY

must live with the religious preference of Andrew Cuomo, NY Const. ARt. 1, Sec. 3 notwithstanding.
You can't close Nassau OTB, a public benefit corporation, on Roman Catholic Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday in preference to Greek Orthodox Easter Sunday and Palm Sunday.




Photo

Plaintiffs in the suit over Virginia’s gay-marriage ban. An appeals panel heard arguments Tuesday on the ban’s constitutionality. Credit Steve Helber/Associated Press

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story
RICHMOND, Va. — In sharp exchanges pitting the right of states to set marriage rules against equal protection for gay and lesbian couples, a three-judge federal appeals panel here heard arguments on Tuesday on the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages.
The panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit appeared to be divided on the issues in what legal experts consider a crucial case that could propel the marriage question to the Supreme Court in the coming year.
“Is this a constitutional issue of magnitude or a democratic issue that can be decided by the states?” asked the presiding judge, Paul V. Niemeyer, in one of several comments that seemed to suggest support for Virginia’s restrictive law.
A second judge, Roger L. Gregory, gave strong indications of support for equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples. As lawyers defended Virginia’s restrictions as a reasonable attempt to foster procreation and child welfare, he pressed them, asking: “Do same-sex couples have children? Do you think that child wants less of the dignity of marriage than any other child?”

Photo

Opponents of gay marriage on Tuesday outside the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. Credit Steve Helber/Associated Press

It appeared that the third panelist, Henry F. Floyd, who spoke relatively little, might provide the decisive vote. His few questions did, however, suggest support for overturning Virginia’s ban.
Judge Floyd was appointed to the appeals court by President Obama. Judge Gregory won a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton and was later nominated by President George W. Bush, while Judge Niemeyer was named by the elder President George Bush.
The appeals panel must decide whether to uphold the ruling in February by Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which struck down the voter-approved amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman and forbidding recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions from other states. In a ringing opinion, Judge Wright Allen held that the historical moment had arrived when “ ‘We the People’ becomes more inclusive.”
The hearing here came 10 years to the week after the first legal same-sex marriage in the United States, in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. Today, 17 states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex marriages. Federal or state courts have called for it in others, and more than 70 challenges to restrictive laws are now pending in at least 30 states.
Late Tuesday, in the latest of several such decisions around the country, a federal magistrate judge ruled that Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
The judge, Candy Dale, wrote that Idaho’s laws wrongly stigmatize gay and lesbian couples and relegate their families to second-class status without sufficient reason. Gov. C. L. (Butch) Otter said he intended to appeal and ask that enforcement be delayed in the meantime, as has happened in other states.
But the legality of same-sex marriage nationally is almost certain to be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year or two, most legal experts believe, after it agrees to review one or more of the decisions issued by federal appeals courts like the one here in Richmond. In the West, the 10th Circuit, based in Denver, has already heard arguments on rulings that overturned marriage restrictions in Oklahoma and Utah, but has not yet issued a decision.
Hearings are likely this year in at least another three of the country’s dozen federal circuit courts.
“Maybe we should just say we pass, and let the case proceed on” to Washington, Judge Niemeyer joked at one point in Tuesday’s hearing.
Only 30 minutes of oral argument were allotted to each side. Arguing in favor of same-sex marriage were three lawyers, reflecting an unusual grouping of two cases and state officials opposing their own law: Theodore B. Olson, of the celebrated team of Olson and David Boies; James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union, which along with Lambda Legal represents the state’s estimated 14,000 gay couples in a separate class-action suit; and Stuart A. Raphael, the solicitor general of Virginia.
State officials turned against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage when Democrats were elected as attorney general and governor last fall, and the defense of the amendment was left to two county clerks of court. Arguing for one was David Austin R. Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian law group; for the other, David B. Oakley, a private lawyer paid by the state.
The arguments on Tuesday centered on clashing interpretations of United States v. Windsor, the landmark decision last year that required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal.
Writing for the 5-to-4 majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that while the definition of marriage was primarily up to the states, their policies could not violate basic rights. In striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the majority held that the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages was discrimination and inflicted a stigma on couples and their children.
To civil rights advocates and a succession of federal judges over recent months, the message seemed clear: At this point in the country’s history, there is no reason to exclude gay and lesbian couples from the right to marry.
“The Bill of Rights trumps federalism,” is how Mr. Raphael, the Virginia solicitor general, put it to the court on Tuesday.
The conservatives argue the opposite: In overturning the federal ban on recognizing state-sanctioned marriages, the Supreme Court was affirming state supremacy.
“The essence of the Windsor opinion is that the federal government must defer to the states,” argued Mr. Nimocks, of Alliance Defending Freedom.
In a heated exchange, Judge Niemeyer repeatedly cut short Mr. Olson as he sought to describe the legal basis for equal marriage rights.
Echoing conservative views, Judge Niemeyer said that traditional heterosexual marriage “is the unit that keeps society going” and that same-sex marriage is something new and different, and asked what would keep the courts from striking down laws against polygamy.
Judge Niemeyer said he expected most states to endorse same-sex marriage, but wondered why the courts should require it.
Mr. Olson responded that similar arguments had been raised when the Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s law barring interracial marriage in 1967, and that to refuse equal status to gay and lesbian couples was creating for them a “second-class relationship in which their children are demeaned.”

 
HI-
Thanks for the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy, if you give me a mailing address.

Claude Solnik
(631) 913-4244
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348 

Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays

Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012


Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.

HI-
Thanks for the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy, if you give me a mailing address.

Claude Solnik
(631) 913-4244
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348 

Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays

Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012


Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.

No comments:

Post a Comment