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.

“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.

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.

“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.

So, there's this primary election

As many of you know, there's a presidential primary on Tuesday in a number of states, including New York. I'm a registered Democrat. Right now, in New York, that means my choices are Clinton and Obama (in this state, you can only vote in the primary of the party you're registered in--I had a teacher in high school who always voted Republican but was a registered Democrat, because the Republicans seldom had primaries).

I was going to vote for Edwards, but he has withdrawn from the race. Neither Clinton nor Obama strikes me as absolutely wonderful (or I would have been supporting that one already). I'm open to suggestions about who I should vote for. Preferably based on policy (voting records and/or consistent statements by the candidates, not "this guy who supports $candidate said X once" or "s/he looks like s/he would do thus-and-such"). Don't bother telling me that other people have endorsed someone--if you're someone I know and like, your endorsement means more to me than that of a Kennedy, or your state legislator, or your favorite newspaper, even if all you have is a hunch.

So, there's this primary election

As many of you know, there's a presidential primary on Tuesday in a number of states, including New York. I'm a registered Democrat. Right now, in New York, that means my choices are Clinton and Obama (in this state, you can only vote in the primary of the party you're registered in--I had a teacher in high school who always voted Republican but was a registered Democrat, because the Republicans seldom had primaries).

I was going to vote for Edwards, but he has withdrawn from the race. Neither Clinton nor Obama strikes me as absolutely wonderful (or I would have been supporting that one already). I'm open to suggestions about who I should vote for. Preferably based on policy (voting records and/or consistent statements by the candidates, not "this guy who supports $candidate said X once" or "s/he looks like s/he would do thus-and-such"). Don't bother telling me that other people have endorsed someone--if you're someone I know and like, your endorsement means more to me than that of a Kennedy, or your state legislator, or your favorite newspaper, even if all you have is a hunch.

Wikipedia

One of the odd things about dropping in on Wikipedia briefly on a regular basis (I try to look at my watchlist a couple of times a week) is that I get periodic messages on my user page, about articles I have no recollection of, because I worked on them five years ago. On at least one occasion, someone thought I had created such an article, because I was either the last editor before, or the first after, the migration to the current software, so a complete article history goes back to me. So I'm asked to defend against deletion a page that I made an attempt to turn into something sane, on a topic that probably doesn't need an article.

The latest I've been asked to attend to is "Early Infanticidal Childrearing." The note says, under the title,

Remember that?

A new editor, Cesar Tort, has done a major edit of the article and changed the title to [[Psychohistorical views on infanticide]], but I still think it is highly problematic. I had a detailed exchange with him in which I set out my problems with the revised article and he responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Early_infanticidal_childrearing#My_own_objections_to_the_article] here - it would take some time to read through, but several years ago you had many valuable comments, and I would be grateful if you could look at the revised article and my comments, and those of others in sections below mine, and add your voice.

While I may have had valuable comments then, right now I am shorter on valuable time, so I'm not planning to pursue this.

Wikipedia

One of the odd things about dropping in on Wikipedia briefly on a regular basis (I try to look at my watchlist a couple of times a week) is that I get periodic messages on my user page, about articles I have no recollection of, because I worked on them five years ago. On at least one occasion, someone thought I had created such an article, because I was either the last editor before, or the first after, the migration to the current software, so a complete article history goes back to me. So I'm asked to defend against deletion a page that I made an attempt to turn into something sane, on a topic that probably doesn't need an article.

The latest I've been asked to attend to is "Early Infanticidal Childrearing." The note says, under the title,

Remember that?

A new editor, Cesar Tort, has done a major edit of the article and changed the title to [[Psychohistorical views on infanticide]], but I still think it is highly problematic. I had a detailed exchange with him in which I set out my problems with the revised article and he responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Early_infanticidal_childrearing#My_own_objections_to_the_article] here - it would take some time to read through, but several years ago you had many valuable comments, and I would be grateful if you could look at the revised article and my comments, and those of others in sections below mine, and add your voice.

While I may have had valuable comments then, right now I am shorter on valuable time, so I'm not planning to pursue this.