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