2008-FEB-01: Appeals court ruled that same-sex marriages
recognized in New York state:
LifeSiteNews.com reported:
"... the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court
of New York ... declared that same-sex 'marriages' recognized as legal in other
countries must be considered valid in the state for purposes of employee
benefits."
In common with other fundamentalist web sites, LifeSiteNews places
quotation marks around "marriage" when they refer to same-sex marriages. This
emphasizes their belief that such marriages are not really valid or meaningful.
Patricia Martinez and Lisa Golden are a loving, committed couple in a
long-term relationship. They went to
Canada in 2004 to be married. Martinez worked for Monroe Community College
in Rochester, NY. The school refused to extend health benefits to her spouse, so
she sued the College in order to obtain the same benefits as all other married
employees automatically received. They lost at the trial court and appealed.
On 2008-FEB-01, the appeals court simply applied a century-old common law
that requires marriages contracted outside of New York state must be recognized
by the state, even if the couple could not marry in New York. This law reflects
the situation in the 19th century when many states did not allow committed,
loving couples to marry if either or both were African American.
The court ruled unanimously (5 to 0) that:
"The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex
marriages solemnized abroad. Until it does so, however, such marriages are
entitled to recognition in New York."
James Esseks, Litigation Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and
Transgender Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU)
said:
"... there is still lots of work to be done here. It's now up to the
state legislature to finish the job it started last year and pass the
marriage bill so that lesbian and gay New Yorkers won't have to leave the
state to celebrate their commitments."
LifeSiteNews.com stated:
"The ruling may create a conflict with a previous decision from the New
York Court of Appeals that ruled in 2006 that homosexual couples have no
right to be issued marriage licenses by local officials, framing the issue
as a matter of the state Constitution. At that time, Justice Smith wrote for
the Court, 'We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel
recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such
marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the
legislature'." 1
The New York Times stated:
"In a decision at once common-sensical and profound, a New York State
appeals court ruled Friday that same-sex marriages validly performed in
other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York. It was common
sense because it simply accorded same-sex marriages the same legal status as
other marriages. It was profound because of the way it could transform the
lives of gay people. ... the ruling marks important progress toward changing
laws and attitudes that deprive gay people of equal rights and deny the
dignity of New York’s many gay families. They should be able to live, marry
and raise children with the same respect and the same rights as anyone
else." 2
The case will likely be appealed.
There will now probably be a rush by loving, committed same-sex couples
resident in New York state to Canada and Massachusetts in order to be married.
3
The New York Civil Liberties Union later
acknowledged that they had brought the case forward in order to move towards
legalizing same-sex marriages within the state. 4
2008-FEB-28: Judge rules divorce action may proceed:
"Beth R" married "Donna M" in Canada. The marriage was unsuccessful, and Beth launched a divorce action against
her spouse in a New York court -- the first such action in the history of the state. Donna M's lawyer believes that a divorce is impossible because the state does
not allow same-sex marriages.
Supreme Court Justice Laura Drager ruled that the state can recognize the same-sex marriage that took place outside of the state. She wrote that New York
would recognize any out-of-state marriage that is not specifically prohibited by state law, and is not "abhorrent to New York public policy." She listed
polygamy and incest as "abhorrent" practices. Donna M.'s lawyer argues that the decision "...sets aside 200 years of decisional and statutory law in
New York."
Donna M said that she plans to appeal the decision. 4,5
References used:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
Hilary White, "New York Court Rules State Must Validate Canadian Homosexual
'Marriages'," LifeSiteNews.com 2008-FEB-04, at:
http://www.lifesite.net/
"A Victory for Same-Sex Marriage,' Editorial, New York Times, 2008-FEB-05,
at:
http://www.nytimes.com/
"New York Judge Permits Lesbian Divorce Despite State's Non-Recognition of Same-sex 'Marriage',"
Life Site News, 2008-FEB-28.
Note: Life Site News, like most other conservative Christian groups, opposes
the right of committed, loving, same-sex couples from marrying. For this reason,
they generally enclose the word "marriage" in quotation marks to indicate that
they do not consider same-sex marriage as valid or meainingful.
