
The New York supreme court ruled Tuesday that Gov. David Paterson acted within his gubernatorial powers when he issued an executive order requiring state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries, The New York Times reports. Same-sex marriage has yet to be legalized in New York State.
Justice Lucy Billings wrote in her opinion, "When partners manifest the commitment to their relationship and family, by solemnizing that commitment elsewhere, through one of life’s most significant events, and come to New York, whether returning home or setting down roots, to carry on that commitment, nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring them to abandon that solemnized commitment." She added, "Nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring [couples] to abandon that solemnized commitment."
Paterson issued the executive order on May 14. The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative group based in Arizona, represented 18 New York lawmakers and other opponents in filing a suit against the order in June, claiming that the order illegally bypassed the legislature's role in issuing the law. In July, Paterson and state attorney general Andrew Cuomo filed a motion to dismiss the case. Paterson said the order was to protect the state from being sued by New York couples who got married in other places and who would then seek recognition of their marriages upon their return.
The state assembly passed a bill to allow same-sex unions in 2007, but the bill has yet to come up for a vote in the senate, according to the Times.
Jim Campbell, a spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal the court's ruling. "We believe that the trial court's ruling is incorrect and that the governor has in fact usurped his authority by overriding the people's decision to define marriage in New York as the union of one man and one woman," he said in a statement.
Lambda Legal represented state employees Peri Rainbow and Tamela Sloan, who married in Canada and wanted their home state to recognize their marriage. The court allowed the couple to intervene in the case.
"The court said that respect for out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is the law in New York," Susan Sommer, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, said in a statement. "There has been a steady drumbeat of courts recognizing long-standing New York law as it applies to same-sex couples; we are very pleased. This is yet another example of the Alliance Defense Fund’s failed attempts to challenge well-established New York law."
Paterson praised the judge, according to Newsday. "This ruling is an important affirmation that states are expected to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, unless existing laws prevent it," he said in the article. "New York has no such prohibition." (The Advocate)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.