Explore the Le Roy area


leroynyonline.com keyword stats



Most current Google search phrases:

"suffolk county NY"+courts "blinds" "Suffolk County"

Gay Marriages From Other States Recognized by NY Appeals Court

New York must recognize same-sexUntil another appeals court rules
marriages conducted in other states,otherwise, New York must recognize
until another appeals court rulessame-sex marriages conducted in other
otherwise. This was held by the New Yorkstates. So held the New York State
State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Fourth Department, this past Friday,Fourth Department this past Friday,
February 1, 2008.February 1, 2008.
The decision in Martinez v. County ofThe decision in Martinez v. County of
Monroe arose out of Martinez's quest toMonroe arose out of Martinez's quest to
obtain spousal health care benefits fromobtain spousal health care benefits from
Monroe Community College for LisaMonroe Community College for Lisa
Golden, whom she married in Ontario,Golden, whom she married in Ontario,
Canada. Where the marriage was performedCanada. Where the marriage was performed
was legal, there was no question. Andwas legal, there was no question. And
then they returned to New York.then they returned to New York.
In the absence of a New York statuteIn the absence of a New York statute
forbidding same-sex marriage, the Courtforbidding same-sex marriage, the Court
found no reason not to recognize thefound no reason not to recognize the
marriage. It held that the marriagemarriage. It held that the marriage
"is entitled to recognition in New"is entitled to recognition in New
York State." Is this a silentYork State." Is this a silent
invitation to the New York Stateinvitation to the New York State
legislature to pass a law deciding thislegislature to pass a law deciding this
issue one way or the other? Maybe.issue one way or the other? Maybe.
After the lawsuit was started but beforeAfter the lawsuit was started but before
the court's decision, the collegethe court's decision, the college
changed its health insurance policy tochanged its health insurance policy to
cover same-sex spouses. This gave risecover same-sex spouses. This gave rise
to an interesting wrinkle in this case,to an interesting wrinkle in this case,
for if Lisa Golden was getting healthfor if Lisa Golden was getting health
insurance anyway, what was there left toinsurance anyway, what was there left to
sue over? In legal terms we ask if theresue over? In legal terms we ask if there
was any longer a "justiciablewas any longer a "justiciable
controversy." The Court said thatcontroversy." The Court said that
there was, as the college would bethere was, as the college would be
liable for damages for the time periodliable for damages for the time period
that it refused to give health insurancethat it refused to give health insurance
coverage to the plaintiff's spouse. Wecoverage to the plaintiff's spouse. We
don't know if those damages are great ordon't know if those damages are great or
small. They might be the cost of Lisasmall. They might be the cost of Lisa
Golden going to the doctor's office, orGolden going to the doctor's office, or
her out-of-pocket expense to purchaseher out-of-pocket expense to purchase
her own health insurance or whatever.her own health insurance or whatever.
Thus, it seems that the court had aThus, it seems that the court had a
potential way out here if it wanted topotential way out here if it wanted to
duck the controversy entirely. It mayduck the controversy entirely. It may
have decided that since the college ishave decided that since the college is
now providing health benefits, therenow providing health benefits, there
wasn't justiciable controversy so thewasn't justiciable controversy so the
lawsuit was "moot." Instead,lawsuit was "moot." Instead,
the court waded in and addressed the gaythe court waded in and addressed the gay
marriage issue head-on, giving amarriage issue head-on, giving a
favorable and enlightened reading to thefavorable and enlightened reading to the
facts before it. No cowards on thisfacts before it. No cowards on this
Appellate Division, Fourth DepartmentAppellate Division, Fourth Department
panel.panel.
Commentary: Gay advocates hail theCommentary: Gay advocates hail the
decision as only a first step towardsdecision as only a first step towards
what they consider truly would be fair:what they consider truly would be fair:
permitting gay marriages in New Yorkpermitting gay marriages in New York
State. I and my lawyer friends lookState. I and my lawyer friends look
forward to the day when gay marriage isforward to the day when gay marriage is
legal in New York; where there are gaylegal in New York; where there are gay
marriages, there WILL be gay divorces.marriages, there WILL be gay divorces.



1 A B C 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103