Praise then darkness, and creation unfinished

I am pleased and relieved by the Supreme Court ruling striking down part of DOMA, and unsurprised that they have ducked the issue on the California marriage cases.

IANAL, but it looks as though, in addition to symbolism, this is a significant benefit for same-sex couples in a dozen states, in terms of federal income tax, benefits, and immigration.

Oh, and try a google search today on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer.

The judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs: that Proposition 8 is a violation of equal protection and thus unconstitutional. I'm skimming the decision, which cynthia1960 linked to: the judge found the defense (i.e. anti-marriage) witnesses to have no credibility, and pointed out that one of them had said very different things about anti-gay discrimination and the referendum process before he was hired as an "expert."

In addition to the basic good thing, overturning the damned proposition, the decision, which is based on equal protection and due process, gives a history of California marriage and divorce law, lists some of the ways marriage can benefit couples, and notes that is costing the state money. And there are some nice quotes: to deal with the argument that same-sex couples can't procreate, he quotes Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he pointed out if moral disapproval of homosexuality is not relevant, there is no basis for denying same-sex couples marriage, and that no, sterility isn't one, as mixed-sex couples who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. Somehow I don't think that's how he meant that dissent to be used.

The judge has stayed his decision on the expectation of appeal, so nothing will happen yet, but this is a good sign.

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.

I just sent a letter to the editor to Newsday (it's the paper I read), pointing out Bloomberg's hypocrisy in saying that he's in favor of same-sex marriage, but is appealing against the ruling requiring the city to allow it.

The snarky part is that I didn't just point out that allowing same-sex marriages isn't only a matter of justice: in the short term, it's also a nice boost to tourism. I ended by asking, if he thinks the city can't handle that many visitors, how does he think we can handle the Olympics?

I have no idea if they'll print it: I've had a few letters printed there before, but I expect they'll get a lot of mail on this one.

"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be. There's midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."—Gavin Newsom