Yay! A New York state appellate court in Rochester has ruled that same-sex marriages solemnized in foreign countries (such as Canada) must be recognized in New York State:
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge’s ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee’s lesbian partner.
Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005, arguing that it granted benefits to heterosexual married couples but denied them to Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden.
The couple formalized their relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001 and were married in Canada in 2004.
The college refused to add Golden to the health care benefits because its contract with the Civil Service Employees Association did not address benefits for same-sex partners. Since then, the contract has been enhanced to extend benefits to an employee’s domestic partner.
State Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway dismissed Martinez’s lawsuit in August 2006, saying that the state does not recognize same-sex marriages. The state Legislature “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman,” he wrote.
The appellate judges disagreed, determining 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.”
Now, this is a very interesting ruling, because there *are* some same-sex marriages that have been recognized in New York; Massachusetts law does not give legal effect to marriages performed there where the state of residence of the couple prohibits the marriage, but couples who were married in Massachusetts between the date it was legalized there and the date when the New York Court of Appeals ruled that New York’s laws do not permit same-sex marriage have valid marriages because the law in New York was unsettled at the time. So, given that some marriages performed out of state are valid, it would be inequitable for others to be invalid. And really, the only reason that most same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts aren’t valid in New York is because of Massachusetts law — if they’re not valid in the couple’s home state at the time they’re performed, they’re simply not valid at all. But AFAIK, Canada has no such restrictions.
Great news!
I’m still puzzled about how state and federal law supposedly overrules the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Shouldn’t there have to be an amendment?
Of course, changing it would completely fuck up interstate commerce, but that’s a small price to pay to weed out the scourge of gay marriage!
/snark
It doesn’t, and DOMA should really be held unconstitutional on that basis alone. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Scalia and co. figure out some way to uphold the statute. Since they’re not real inclined to follow the Constitution.
So, um, can I claim Rochester as my new “hometown” since I’m kinda living here full-time for school? >.>
If I’m not misunderstanding, this also means that any couple who resides in Massachusetts and weds there legally, then moves to New York and takes up residence there, will have their marriage continue to be recognized. It’s just that you have to have residency in order to get married in Mass.
Zuzu, may I warmly suggest that you put up a “trigger alert” for attorneys who underwent traumatic experiences in their Conflicts of Laws classes…. ouch…….