Also in the late-Friday news

...a New York state court ruled that denying gays the right to marry was an unconstitutional infringement of their equal rights.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said the law violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

She also compared the law to ones that once prohibited interracial marriages.

Those better placed than I to judge such matters have suggested that this decision was written in a way that's likely to survive the inevitable appeals (the logic closely parallels that used in MA). All language referring to gender (bride, husband, etc.) would have to be removed from NYC marriage licenses when this ruling goes into effect. I particularly liked this quote from the judge:

"Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing," the judge said in her unprecedented ruling. "The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone."

Well, yes, that's always seemed obvious to me...

Addendum: for legal geeks or those wanting to know more about this decision and how well it will hold up, here's an interesting article by Yale law professor James Balkin about possible legal bases for supporting the right to same-sex marraige, along with their differing strengths and weaknesses... (via How Appealing)