NY Times Concurs with State Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

I'm a bit late with this one, but it's too important to ignore. On Friday, a New York State appeals court ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages that are valid in other juristictions, including Canada. This would seem to be a huge step toward the state legalizing same-sex marriages performed inside its borders.

Here is an editorial from the New York Times that, like me (but with a tad more weight behind it) applauds this landmark, unanamous ruling:

In a decision at once common-sensical and profound, a New York State
appeals court ruled Friday that same-sex marriages validly performed in other
jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York. It was common sense
because it simply accorded same-sex marriages the same legal status as other
marriages. It was profound because of the way it could transform the lives of
gay people.

The plaintiff in the case, Patricia Martinez, a word-processing supervisor
at an upstate college, married her longtime partner, Lisa Ann Golden, in Canada
in 2004. When Ms. Martinez applied for health care benefits for her spouse, the
college denied the application on the grounds that New York did not recognize
the marriage.

The court, by a 5-0 vote, declared that the college was wrong. Employers in
the state must accord same-sex couples the same rights as other couples. To
reach that result, it simply applied New York’s “marriage recognition rule.”
Under this century-old common-law rule, marriages validly contracted out of
state must be accorded respect in New York, and parties to such unions treated
as spouses, regardless of whether the marriage would be allowed in New
York.

The rule applies unless the Legislature explicitly prohibits recognition or
recognition would be abhorrent to public policy. Unlike many states, New York
has not passed a law denying recognition to same-sex marriages performed
elsewhere. The court rightly decided that recognizing same-sex marriages would
not be “abhorrent.”

The ruling is particularly welcome because it follows a regrettable
decision two years ago by New York’s highest court. That decision said that
prohibiting same-sex marriages from being performed in New York does not violate
the State Constitution. Honoring same-sex marriages validly performed out of
state is a wholly separate legal issue, a point that New York’s attorney
general, Andrew Cuomo, usefully underscored in a friend-of-court
brief.

The new decision still leaves considerable work to be done. New York’s ban
on performing same-sex marriage remains in force. And there is a chance that the
marriage-recognition decision will now be appealed.

Still, the ruling marks important progress toward changing laws and
attitudes that deprive gay people of equal rights and deny the dignity of New
York’s many gay families. They should be able to live, marry and raise children
with the same respect and the same rights as anyone else.