Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

NY: Out of State Same-Sex Marraiges Are Legal

Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend at 6:05 AM on May 12, 2008.


A ruling in New York held that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere must be recognized by the state.
samesex

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Note to Elite Pundits: You Don't Speak for 'Ordinary Folks'
Digby Hullabaloo

Iraqi Media: U.S. Building Airbase on Iran Border
Editors Gorilla's Guides

This Week in God
Steve Benen The Carpetbagger Report

This victory nearly slipped under the radar. New York's highest court decided not to review a ruling in February that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (Massachusetts and Canada, for instance, where Kate and I married), must be recognized by the state.

In a cryptically worded one-sentence order issued on May 6, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest, declined, for the time being at least, to review a February 1 appellate court ruling out of Rochester that a lesbian couple, Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden, who married in Canada in 2004 are entitled to legal recognition of that marriage by Monroe Community College, Martinez's employer.

Since the Rochester ruling is the only New York appellate court ruling - coming from the Appellate Division's 4th Department - on the marriage recognition question issued to date, the decision stands as legal precedent statewide unless contradicted by one of the other appellate departments or reversed by the Court of Appeals.

The Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's statewide LGBT lobby group, taking note of that precedent, was quick to claim victory from the high court demurring on the issue.

"Today's action by New York's highest court means that the state of the law remains the same," said Alan Van Capelle, ESPA's executive director, in a written statement. "Same-sex couples who have gone to places like Canada to get married, or have moved to New York from places like Massachusetts, will continue to be treated as the married couples they are here in New York."

Legislation that would officially legalize marriage equality within the state is still pending, and the key is to ensure there is a pro-marriage majority in the state Senate, and that means turning that body over to Democratic control in the fall.

"Until a law is passed by the New York State Legislature, there will always be the possibility that another court decision could undo Martinez v. County of Monroe and strip away from otherwise legally married same-sex couples all of the 1,324 state-based rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license in New York," Van Capelle said in his written statement. "Besides, no loving, committed couple should ever have to leave their home state to make sure that their family has the protection and stability of marriage."

Wouldn't you know it, look who was waiting by the phone to give his reaction:

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says activist judges are now forcing homosexual marriage on New York citizens. "[T]his is a very sad day for New Yorkers, and we hope this doesn't happen in [other] states across this nation," he comments.

"This is precisely what we feared with the whole onset of homosexual 'marriage' - different states being required, through activist judges ... to recognize [gay] marriages of other states [or] a foreign country."

The knuckle-draggers of the swamp managed to toss some Muslim bashing (?!) in for good measure.

Actual Freeper Quotes

Tolerance sucks rocks. I just don't know what else to say. If they called for a revolution, nobody would come.

Only one state, Arizona, has tried and failed to pass a Defense of Marriage Act ...Guess what' going to be shoved up AZ's a$$ in the very near future.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for "Truth About Homosexuality" says activist judges are now forcing homosexual marriage on New York citizens. You mean it's not just legal, it's mandatory?

Contempt of courts is my mantra. These men who work in dresses are responsible for all this crap.

And when a Muzzi shows up with 5 or 6 'legal' wives, what happens?

Wow, who would have ever thought gubberment would mess marriage up. Gubberment has such a great track record with everything else...

I discussed this last year on a thread regarding the Florida anti-gay marriage campaign

"Ultimately a waste of time I think. Eventually the matter will be before the Supreme Court where the United States Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause" will trump the local restrictions.

Florida can choose to set its own restrictions on marriages performed in that jurisdiction, but legal marriages from elsewhere are legally binding on Florida and any other state. To illustrate, consider how different states set varying age requirements for marriage, but the marriage isn't void when moving to a state that sets a higher age. And interstate travel to marry in a more accommodating state is already common.

You also had the same situation in the old days when divorce was much more limited. People got around this by going to Nevada for a quickie divorce the original restrictive state was forced to recognize.

Absent a federal constitutional amendment, which apparently isn't going to happen, I really see no other final outcome.""

How curious that this would break on Friday, when Friday was the first time in 4 years here that I actually saw one colorfully dressed professional male walk another to the corner and give him a "have a nice day" peck.

Like your typical muslim kneeling in public (I've seen more of those here than the other), there is an unmistakeable sense that the performance is just that: a performance, done for effect. That sort of motivation dies out when its audience yawns and loses interest.

IT needs to be settled in the United States Supreme Court. It's a sad day, that people lack common sense and force perversion on everyone. It's no longer "tolerance". It's FORCED acceptance.

More proof a Federal Marriage Amendment is needed.

Of course McCain is essentially FOR homosexual marriage.

Digg!

Tagged as: lgbt, marriage, new york


Note to Elite Pundits: You Don't Speak for 'Ordinary Folks'
These gasbags will never tire of the narrative.
Post by Digby. July 19, 2008.
Iraqi Media: U.S. Building Airbase on Iran Border
If true, a provocative move.
Post by Editors. July 19, 2008.
This Week in God
A round-up of religious news.
Post by Steve Benen. July 19, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
it must be sad for them...
Posted by: ZenQuixote on May 12, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to know that their relationships are so pathetically shallow that the thought of happiness for "Others"{people not like them} could destroy it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've never been able to figure out
Posted by: lepidopteryx on May 12, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why my heterosexual marriage needs to be defended from homosexual marriages. I know several same-sex couples who have gotten married in Massachusetts, Canada, and the Netherlands, and not one of those marriages has changed my relationship with my husband or my child in the slightest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coming soon...
Posted by: Axiom69 on May 12, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being polygamy is in the news lately I started to wonder: What happens when a man and two women show up at the court house looking for a marriage license? Sooner or later someone is going to try. Imagine an employer having to pay benefits for 8 wives and 47 children. It may sound far fetched but all of the arguments in support of gay marriage can be used for polygamy. After all what is the difference between 2 consenting adults and 3? Except of course the more crowded bed and losing 2/3 of your stuff in a divorce instead of 1/2. :P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Coming soon... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» Yet another argument Posted by: hurricane hugo