: ALBANY, N.Y. - Same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere will be recognized in New York in response to a state court ruling this year, Gov. David Paterson's spokeswoman said Wednesday.
State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.
Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.
The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."
Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.
New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.
Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada, for example.
Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. Agencies have until June 30 to report back to the governor's counsel on how, specifically, the directive will change existing state benefits and services for gay couples.
The memo states that failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, the memo warns.
The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, which was first reported by The New York Times.
The February appellate decision involved the case of a woman whose female partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada.
Gay rights advocates have sought recognition for gay marriages so couples could share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights, and inherit property. Most of these advocates rejected civil unions, thought to be a compromise, because the unions lacked the legal protections of marriage.
The point is marriage is a CIVIL institution in society as well as a religious one. We have a separation between church and state in this country. The government governs CIVIL matters in this country therefore *** people should be able to get married in at the very least CIVIL ceremonies.
If your holier than thou church chooses not to recognize the union, that is their business; but we citizens are not GOVERNED by the church. We the People GOVERN OURSELVES via a representative government. People pay taxes just like the rest of us. WE ARE ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.
Take your religious beliefs and shove them.
While you all are quoting Bible scripture in one sentence, and using some pretty nasty language in the next one, *** are busying themselves with trying make a happy life.
Again, many of you all are sitting around complaining as most sensible people are more preoccupied with lack of health care, high gas prices, and a seemingly endless war to concern themselves with judging others.
By the way, isn't judgment a sin?
just sayin'....
if you're against *** marriage...don't have one.
it doesn't damage society, drugs, guns, low graduation rates, and republicans do.
people said interracial marriage was wrong and guess what? it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban interracial marriage.
being *** is biological. if i could be straight, i would be. being *** sucks and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. it only sucks because *** like you (the ones who are hateful towards ***) make it suck.
what do you think about someone being killed for being ***? are you all for it?
what about if *** had a separate bathroom? is that fair?
so why can't i marry the person i love?
how is *** marriage gonna hurt anyone?
and God has nothing to do with it when it's in the courts.
FiendiFiend - It is not my lifestyle, but I thought I was very clear.
Our government is not governed by any church, temple, mosque, etc. In fact, in this country you have religious freedom. Freedom to be atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, satan worshipers or whatever. Like I said hold close to your vest your religious beliefs. Your church does not have to recognize these unions. In fact condemn them if you wish. This is a civil matter for the government, not a religious one.
Our government doesn't deal in religion. Remember that is one of the major reasons America fought for independence against Britain: Religious freedom and freedom from religion.
Do you, boo! You can only live your OWN life and no one else's. Stop being a control freak! Live and let live!
whoUgettingat? Straight is the new ***. I see some of you *** thugs in the village. You know how I know you're ***?.... cause you clicked on this story. lmao And for you hating *** females up here I don’t know why you are concerning yourself with *** marriage because you will probably never experience a straight marriage because straight men aint marrying yall anyway
