Gay Marriages From Other States Recognized by NY Appeals Court

New York must recognize same-sex marriagesUntil another appeals court rules otherwise, New York
conducted in other states, until another appeals courtmust recognize same-sex marriages conducted in
rules otherwise. This was held by the New Yorkother states. So held the New York State Supreme
State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, FourthCourt, 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 aroseThe decision in Martinez v. County of Monroe arose
out of Martinez's quest to obtain spousal health careout of Martinez's quest to obtain spousal health care
benefits from Monroe Community College for Lisabenefits from Monroe Community College for Lisa
Golden, whom she married in Ontario, Canada. WhereGolden, whom she married in Ontario, Canada. Where
the marriage was performed was legal, there was nothe 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 forbiddingIn the absence of a New York statute forbidding
same-sex marriage, the Court found no reason notsame-sex marriage, the Court found no reason not
to recognize the marriage. It held that the marriageto 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 NewState." Is this a silent invitation to the New
York State legislature to pass a law deciding thisYork 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'sAfter the lawsuit was started but before the court's
decision, the college changed its health insurancedecision, the college changed its health insurance
policy to cover same-sex spouses. This gave rise topolicy to cover same-sex spouses. This gave rise to
an interesting wrinkle in this case, for if Lisa Goldenan interesting wrinkle in this case, for if Lisa Golden
was getting health insurance anyway, what waswas getting health insurance anyway, what was
there left to sue over? In legal terms we ask if therethere left to sue over? In legal terms we ask if there
was any longer a "justiciablewas 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 theas the college would be liable for damages for the
time period that it refused to give health insurancetime period that it refused to give health insurance
coverage to the plaintiff's spouse. We don't know ifcoverage to the plaintiff's spouse. We don't know if
those damages are great or small. They might be thethose damages are great or small. They might be the
cost of Lisa Golden going to the doctor's office, orcost of Lisa Golden going to the doctor's office, or
her out-of-pocket expense to purchase her ownher 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 wayThus, it seems that the court had a potential way
out here if it wanted to duck the controversyout here if it wanted to duck the controversy
entirely. It may have decided that since the college isentirely. It may have decided that since the college is
now providing health benefits, there wasn't justiciablenow 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 gayInstead, the court waded in and addressed the gay
marriage issue head-on, giving a favorable andmarriage issue head-on, giving a favorable and
enlightened reading to the facts before it. Noenlightened reading to the facts before it. No
cowards on this Appellate Division, Fourthcowards on this Appellate Division, Fourth
Department panel.Department panel.
Commentary: Gay advocates hail the decision as onlyCommentary: Gay advocates hail the decision as only
a first step towards what they consider truly woulda first step towards what they consider truly would
be fair: permitting gay marriages in New York State. Ibe fair: permitting gay marriages in New York State. I
and my lawyer friends look forward to the day whenand my lawyer friends look forward to the day when
gay marriage is legal in New York; where there aregay marriage is legal in New York; where there are
gay marriages, there WILL be gay divorces.gay marriages, there WILL be gay divorces.