New York To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

ALBANY, N.Y. — Same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere will be recognized in New York in response to a state court ruling this year, Gov. David Paterson's spokeswoman said Wednesday.

State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.

Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies.

The memo states that failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, the memo warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, which was first reported by The New York Times.

The February appellate decision involved the case of a woman whose female partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada.

Comments

[felixtkatz]

BRAVO NEW YORK!! BRAVO AND THANK YOU!

[adamsmith]

Who cares? Marriage is dead.......................

[BobSF94117]

This is great news, but I wish he had waited a couple months. It's hard enough to book a wedding in California as it is. ;-)

[yngcelt]

{continued}
Personally, I think legalizing gay marriages could be a boost to the economy. Gays are very stylish and fashionable and you know that their weddings would be top end so that would be a boon to florists, party planners, etc. They are also very clean and personable people so any married couple moving into a neighborhood would bring up home values once they get those yards landscaped and their houses beautified. And one last thing...THEY'RE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME!!! They deserve the same chance to be happy that anybody else gets!

[yngcelt]

I don't see what the big deal is. Let them get married! It's not like it's going to have some kind of negative consequences on straight people getting married. And as a conservative, I'm so tired of hearing the same B.S. arguments from the anti-gay marriage conservatives:
1. It's immoral - NO! straight guys who get married and have children and then molest children are immoral!
2. The bible says it's wrong - And the bible says divorce, disobedience to your parents and other things are wrong as well. And those are "crimes" punishable by death in biblical times. So let's not cherry pick the good book, mmkay?
3. It's an affront to traditional marriage - NO, TV shows like "Wife Swap", "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", "The Bachelor", etc. are affronts to marriage!
4. It promotes gay sex - No, if anything, marriage PREVENTS gay sex. Ask any guy whose been married for more than 3 years how often he gets nookie. Especially after kids are added to the mix.
5. They want special priviliges - What complete B.S. What "special priviliges" could they possibly get that straight married people don't already get? Tax breaks? Got em! And that's pretty much it.

[CAMBEL]

I'm not an overly sappy person....but this brought a tear to my eye. So now we will have legal gay couples in the two most populous states in the nation, as well as in MA. Hmmm, well so far the ground hasn't opened up and hell hasn't invaded with it's army of demons, so perhaps gays marrying isn't that big a deal to god. Maybe he's much more worried about all of those hetrosexuals committing adultry. ;)

[RTIII]

Hey folks,

someone should point out - it should have been in the (ahem) _well_researched_ article - that the U.S. Constitution already forces states to recognize the marriages made in other states. I'll leave it to a lawyer type who knows the detail better to point out exactly where this provision is... THE POINT IS, this action is largely symbolic - practical, wonderful, but symbolic. It simply means that people won't have to go to court in that state to get the rights that are already legally theirs.

[CitizenFace]

Individual states can choose not to recognize gay marriages from outside the state by defining marriage in their constitution as a union between one man and one woman. Thusly states can still "honor" all marriages, it's just that what they deem to be a marriage in Alabama isn't necessarily the same as in Cali.

[BobSF94117]

The Constitution says that a state must recognize marriages made in other states UNLESS the state has a compelling reason not to. So far, plenty of state courts have determined that they have such compelling reasons. The Supreme Court has not been asked to weigh in.

[LeonBNJ]

Gov. Patterson made the right decison. The State of NY has a significant Gay/Lesbian population and his directive recognizes well recognized Constitutional law principals. Yes, many disagree with same-gender civil marriage/unions usually based on thier religious beliefs, but I believe we have reached a tipping point of most people not objecting to such unions recognizing that Gay/Lesiban persons can't live any other way. This just makes sure that various laws and public policies are properly follow as if they were a traditional couple saving a lot of lawsuits and undue hassle.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"Gov. Patterson made the right decison. I believe we have reached a tipping point of most people not objecting to such unions recognizing that Gay/Lesiban persons can't live any other way."

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!

Then one day we cast away our secret longing;
The raging tide we held inside would hold no more.
The silence at last was broken!
We flung wide our prison door.
Ev'ry joyous word of love was spoken.

What the world needs now, is LOVE, SWEET LOVE! It's the only thing that there's just TOO LITTLE OF!!!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[Tommygun264]

If only Jerry Falwell could have lived to see this - then we could have all gathered around the television to watch his head explode. Oh well, we still have Pat Robertson for laughs.

[vmonter]

Treat people as equals!? In America?! Go figure.

[STORMATSEA]

Although I think its great and if we were a real nation of equality this ruling would, should have never been necessary.
However, I am always suspicious of the timing. It always happens during an election year, which inflames the fundies and then they runout in droves and vote for what ever dumbf***k who promises
to smote the "fags".
It just seems obvious to me.

[NYC07]

Patterson ran with, dare we mention his name, Elliot S. who was a big proponent of Marriage Equality for all; he is just following up on Mr. "S"'s campaign promise.

[honorharrington]

The governor's order is merely implementing the NY Court of Appeals' decision released on February 1, 2008, Martinez v. Monroe County.

As for timing, these cases take years to get through the judicial system.

[jwb]

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1:

'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

States have no choice but to accept it, secede, or propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the legitimacy of states' rights.

[vmonter]

And for good measure...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

[CitizenFace]

Individual states can get around it by "defining" what marriage is in their constitution. If your state has a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a particular thing, they will not recognize any union that falls outside the bounds of that definition.

[ramal]

Happy Days are queer again! New York State needs to take the next step and completely legalize same sex marriage as well. Perhaps one day the poor souls in Alabama will realize that marriage is not a "special right" but an equal right.

[Gary47]

Hallelujah! Finally. May the floodgates open up and tolerance spill forth like a mighty river.

[Horatio]

Considering its newsworthiness, this is a small thread. It's a interesting development, though, on the Full Faith and Credit clause.So what happens when a couple is recognized in three states then moves to, say, Utah? (Which seemingly every gay couple in America is doing.)