![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Marriage access: New York
The Appellate Division (the second-highest court in New York) has reaffirmed that New York state recognizes marriages, including same-sex marriages, performed elsewhere. In the specific case, the question was about benefits for an employees wife: the two women got married in Ontario. This is in line with a century of previous rulings, some of them affirming that other marriages that New York would not itself solemnize, were valid here if performed elsewhere.
This state is unlikely to prohibit such recognition, even though the majority leader of the state senate is, for now, blocking a vote on the same-sex marriage bill. The assembly passed it last year, and I expect would do so again, and Gov. Spitzer has said he will sign it if/when it reaches him.
State and New York City agencies had already been recognizing such marriages for the purposes of employee benefits--when Spitzer was attorney general, he made that policy, citing "full faith and credit"--but this goes further. A few New Yorker residents had marriages to same-sex partners recognized because they were legally married in Massachusetts, but that state is currently granting marriage licenses to same-sex pairs only if at least one is a Massachusetts resident. There's no such limitation on getting married in Canada, and Montreal and Ontario are right next door to us.
“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled unanimously in rejecting a 2006 lower court decision. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”For more than a century, the court noted, New York State has recognized valid out-of-state marriages. Moreover, it said that the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest judicial body, has said the Legislature may enact laws recognizing same-sex marriages. “In our view, the Court of Appeals thereby indicated that the recognition of plaintiff’s marriage is not against the public policy of New York,” the court held.
This state is unlikely to prohibit such recognition, even though the majority leader of the state senate is, for now, blocking a vote on the same-sex marriage bill. The assembly passed it last year, and I expect would do so again, and Gov. Spitzer has said he will sign it if/when it reaches him.
State and New York City agencies had already been recognizing such marriages for the purposes of employee benefits--when Spitzer was attorney general, he made that policy, citing "full faith and credit"--but this goes further. A few New Yorker residents had marriages to same-sex partners recognized because they were legally married in Massachusetts, but that state is currently granting marriage licenses to same-sex pairs only if at least one is a Massachusetts resident. There's no such limitation on getting married in Canada, and Montreal and Ontario are right next door to us.
no subject
Nitpicking to be polite -- it's possible for any two people regardless of gender to get married in the rest of Quebec too. And while Montreal is nearer, Quebec city is also very scenic.
no subject
no subject
no subject
When we left, Massachusetts was saying that they wouldn't perform marriages on out-of-staters if the marriage would be illegal in their home state (following a law originally passed in regards to interracial marriages). In practice, at the time that limited it to Mass residents. A case could be made that with the current ruling, New Yorkers would qualify as well.
Any chance of dumping the obnoxious majority leader in November? Or the obnoxious majority?
no subject
I don't think there's much chance of dumping the majority leader in the sense of him losing his district or the leadership, but it's a pretty narrow majority. It looks possible. How likely, I don't know. (The variables include the national elections, as well as possibly questions like whether said majority leader supports Mayor Bloomberg's policy ideas in the hope of getting campaign contributions for the state party, and whether, if he does, Bloomberg hands the money over. Answer cloudy, ask again later.)
no subject
-Nameseeker
no subject
It's not so much that Bruno is likely to lose his seat--the hope is that two or three other Republicans will be defeated, or retire and be replaced by Democrats, and that would mean Bruno wouldn't have a majority. And then maybe the state legislature would do something. (I don't just mean on this, though on this is certainly included.)