home

Court Upholds NY Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages

A New York trial court upheld Governor David Patterson's executive order directing state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Justice Lucy Billings rejected a challenge filed by legislators who argued that it was up to the legislature to decide which out-of-state marriages should be recognized in New York.

Justice Billings rejected the plaintiffs’ reasoning, finding that Mr. Paterson’s order was consistent with state laws that generally require officials to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions and are silent on whether same-sex marriages should be excluded from that recognition.

“Furthermore,” she wrote, “when partners manifest the commitment to their relationship and family, by solemnizing that commitment elsewhere, through one of life’s most significant events, and come to New York, whether returning home or setting down roots, to carry on that commitment, nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring them to abandon that solemnized commitment.”

< Joe Lieberman Shills for McCain | Foul Language and Rude Gestures Lead to Pittsburgh Citations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    so, does't this mean (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:54:49 PM EST
    that New Yorkers can go to Mass and get married since the marriage will be legal in NY? Sounds to me like we will soon have marriage equality in MA, CA, NY and NJ. I add NJ because I believe they will conclude separate is not equal and approve marriage soon. With two of the largest states plus MA and NJ, what percentage ofthe population will have marriage equality?

    Vermont soon, too (none / 0) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:00:38 PM EST
    I'm sure of it.

    YAY!!

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    I am not sure the marriage is "legal" in NY, just that the state agencies all have to recognize it.  I guess it depends on the wording of the MA law, but I thought that got changed already.

    Parent
    Yes, they dumped the law that said (none / 0) (#9)
    by Valhalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    no Mass. officials could register a marriage that would be against the law in the parties' home state.

    Not as good as same sex marriage being explicitly legal in NY State, but the two aren't that far apart.  It's be cool if some border towns built up a gay marriage specialty, until NY does the right thing completely.

    Parent

    The Berkshires -- beautiful country (none / 0) (#13)
    by Redshoes on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:00:21 AM EST
    and just wonderful wedding weekends -- any season is gorgeous.

    Parent
    did some quick calculations (none / 0) (#14)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    with just those 4 MA, CA, NY and NJ over 23% of the US population will have marriage equality.  I think once we reach those kind of numbers and people see that the world doesn't come to an end, other states in the North East and North West will come on board quickly.

    Add the populations for these other states MD, OR, WA, MA, NH, VT, DE, HI, MN
    and the percentage jumps from 23% to 32%.  Almost 1/3 of all Americans with access to full marriage equality.

    At that point, I would think the other states would start having EVEN MORE of a reputation for being backward and bigoted.  Especially when studies start to show how economically beneficial it is for the states with equality in terms of attracting the best industries, showing the benefits for keeping children out of poverty and the health benefits in general for adults who can get insurance easier and have more financial stability.

    Parent

    I don't have time for that math but (none / 0) (#16)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    MD is far from recognizing marriage rights. Not only did the Ct of Appeals (our supreme ct) blow it off because of procreation, but just recently they also made sure to NOT recognize parental rights with a child conceived and raised by a couple. Our Legislature may get there someday but I do believe I'll need to marry elsewhere.
    But maybe you could look a states that have civil unions as ones that will eventually recognize marriages from elsewhere. But I don't believe we will have close to full recognition until we defeat DOMA and get fed'l recognition.

    Parent
    Some friends of mine... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by EL seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    ... recently passed through town on the way to getting hitched in CA.  I asked them if, because of the patchwork of wedding laws, they could each marry different guys in different states.  And maybe get a GPS attachment to the wedding license that would beep when they crossed a state border to let them know who they were married to.

    Since they're both New Yorkers, this should settle that easily enough!

    Likwe a wifi detector (none / 0) (#17)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    You could have it on your keychain while travelling - married, not married, unioned, legal strangers, married.

    Parent
    A wise woman. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM EST


    Seems to be a wise and sound ruling--best wishes (none / 0) (#15)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:01:35 AM EST
    for it not being struck down.

    Good for NY!

    Parent

    Good Judge, Good Guv (none / 0) (#3)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:55:55 PM EST


    Will the Preidential campaigns (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    make statements re this decision?  'Twill be interesting.

    That's great news! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ardeth on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    And very eloquently expressed by the judge.

    Yay (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:15:45 PM EST
    And depending on how the State Senate shakes out this November, full marriage rights can be passed into law.

    In other words, those unnamed legislators had better be careful what they wish for.

    Certainly a step in the rigth direction (none / 0) (#11)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:27:09 PM EST
    Hopefully, the NY legislature will take the hint. Kudos to the judge for her eloquence and wisdom.

    This is great news (none / 0) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:20:29 AM EST
    But after NY passes same-sex marriage we still have to either refight all those state constitutional amendments outlawing it, which could take decades more, or there has to be action by Congress. This is still going to be a long fight.