Explore the Le Roy area


leroynyonline.com keyword stats



Most current Google search phrases:

"rhode island" "Motion to Terminate "allen Iverson season high" 2005-2006
allen iverson crosses  
Most current MSN search phrases:

business green
county ferris wheel rental in ny
Leroy+NY Orange County New York Hospitals
brokland to long beach  

Gay Marriages From Other States Recognized by NY Appeals Court

Until another appeals court rules otherwise,Until another appeals court rules otherwise,
New York must recognize same-sex marriagesNew York must recognize same-sex marriages
conducted in other states. So held the Newconducted in other states. So held the New
York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Fourth Department this past Friday, FebruaryFourth Department this past Friday, February
1,  2008.1,  2008.
The decision in Martinez v. County of MonroeThe decision in Martinez v. County of Monroe
arose out of Martinez's quest to obtainarose out of Martinez's quest to obtain
spousal health care benefits from Monroespousal health care benefits from Monroe
Community College for Lisa Golden, whom sheCommunity College for Lisa Golden, whom she
married in Ontario, Canada. Where themarried in Ontario, Canada. Where the
marriage was performed was legal, there wasmarriage was performed was legal, there was
no question. And then they returned to Newno question. And then they returned to New
York.York.
In the absence of a New York statuteIn the absence of a New York statute
forbidding same-sex marriage, the Court foundforbidding same-sex marriage, the Court found
no reason not to recognize the marriage. Itno reason not to recognize the marriage. It
held that the marriage "is entitled toheld that the marriage "is entitled to
recognition in New York State." Is this arecognition in New York State." Is this a
silent invitation to the New York Statesilent invitation to the New York State
legislature to pass a law deciding this issuelegislature to pass a law deciding this issue
one  way  or  the  other? Maybe.one  way  or  the  other? Maybe.
After the lawsuit was started but before theAfter the lawsuit was started but before the
court's decision, the college changed itscourt's decision, the college changed its
health insurance policy to cover same-sexhealth insurance policy to cover same-sex
spouses. This gave rise to an interestingspouses. This gave rise to an interesting
wrinkle in this case, for if Lisa Golden waswrinkle in this case, for if Lisa Golden was
getting health insurance anyway, what wasgetting health insurance anyway, what was
there left to sue over? In legal terms wethere left to sue over? In legal terms we
ask if there was any longer a "justiciableask if there 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 damagesas the college would be liable for damages
for the time period that it refused to givefor the time period that it refused to give
health insurance coverage to the plaintiff'shealth insurance coverage to the plaintiff's
spouse. We don't know if those damages arespouse. We don't know if those damages are
great or small. They might be the cost ofgreat or small. They might be the cost of
Lisa Golden going to the doctor's office, orLisa 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 potentialThus, it seems that the court had a potential
way out here if it wanted to duck theway out here if it wanted to duck the
controversy entirely. It may have decidedcontroversy entirely. It may have decided
that since the college is now providingthat since the college is now providing
health benefits, there wasn't justiciablehealth benefits, there wasn't justiciable
controversy so the lawsuit was "moot."controversy so the lawsuit was "moot."
Instead, the court waded in and addressed theInstead, the court waded in and addressed the
gay marriage issue head-on, giving agay marriage issue head-on, giving a
favorable and enlightened reading to thefavorable and enlightened reading to the
facts before it. No cowards on this Appellatefacts before it. No cowards on this Appellate
Division,  Fourth  Department  panel.Division,  Fourth  Department  panel.
Commentary: Gay advocates hail the decisionCommentary: Gay advocates hail the decision
as only a first step towards what theyas only a first step towards what they
consider truly would be fair: permitting gayconsider truly would be fair: permitting gay
marriages in New York State. I and my lawyermarriages in New York State. I and my lawyer
friends look forward to the day when gayfriends look forward to the day when gay
marriage is legal in New York; where theremarriage is legal in New York; where there
are gay marriages, there WILL be gayare gay marriages, there WILL be gay
divorces.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