Recognition of marriages across political boundaries is a long standing, virtually global tradition .,.. perhaps one of the earliest non-refugee related mundane global practices … to cross borders to get married. The distinction between ceremony and recognition is well established. This does not always mean that marriages are so recognized, but more often than not, they are.
Why are we talking about this? I’m expanding on a discussion happening here regarding the recognition of marriages (in particular gay marriage), celebrated elsewhere, by New York State.
Shortly after the wedding, Martinez applied to her employer, Monroe Community College (MCC), for spousal health benefits for Golden, a benefit clearly provided to opposite-sex spouses. MCC refused to extend benefits to Golden, and Martinez sued. However, the trial court dismissed the case, ruling that since the marriage was not valid in New York, Golden was not a “spouse” and thus was not entitled to any of the benefits accorded other, legal spouses.On appeal, Martinez made two claims. First, she argued that Golden is her legal spouse under New York law. Second, she argued that MCC’s denial of spousal benefits, which were automatically granted to opposite-sex spouses, constituted unlawful sexual orientation discrimination under New York law. She prevailed on both arguments.
Elsewhere in the court system, the Hernandez decision, an excellent example of conservative judges legislating from the bench, determined that “same-sex marriages cannot be legally celebrated in New York.” (ibid)According to Joanna Grossman’s piece on Findlaw:
What is the relevance of Hernandez to the question presented in Martinez? Absolutely none. The question whether a marriage can be legally celebrated in a jurisdiction is entirely distinct from the question whether the marriage should be given effect in the state….New York’s highest court has recognized … a common-law marriage even though the New York legislature had abolished common-law marriage by statute, a marriage between an uncle and a niece of the half blood, an underage marriage, and a “proxy marriage” (where only one party shows up to the ceremony), even though New York would not itself have permitted any of these marriages in the first instance.What set of rules led courts to give effect to the marriages at issue in these cases?The first rule of marriage recognition is the “place of celebration” rule – the idea that a marriage is valid everywhere if valid where celebrated. Most states apply some version of this rule to marriage recognition cases….
Currently, Gay Marriage is not allowed to happen in New York because the courts, not the legislature, has said so. It is possible for the legislature to specifically outlaw recognition of gay marriages, but until that is done it is unlikely that any reasonable (likely higher) court decision would follow that route.The Martinez decision was addressed most recently in May:
New York’s highest court handed same-sex marriage advocates a victory on Tuesday by refusing to hear an appeal on an appellate court’s groundbreaking ruling that recognized a same-sex couple’s Canadian marriage.By letting the earlier ruling stand, valid out-of-state same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of New York. Currently in the United States only Massachusetts offers same-sex couples the legal right to marry.The case, Martinez v. County of Monroe, was decided in February by an appellate court which unanimously affirmed the lesbian couple’s Canadian marriage. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) brought forth the case on behalf of Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor for Monroe Community College in Rochester since 1984.source
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
For what it’s worth, my parents crossed a U.S. state line to be married to avoid the blood test and three day waiting period imposed in their home state.The marriage would have been considered illegal in their home state of the time, yet there were no problems whatever in its recognition by that same state.By all family accounts, Elkton, MD was a bit of a mecca for young metropolitan Philadelphians in the 60s for that very reason.
Now that right there is quotable. It should be plastered on billboards across the nation.
Thank you. I had a kinda squishy good feeling when I wrote it.Is it good enough to get me a place on the Wall of Honor???
I think there would be less homophobia if in schools, children learned how supporting of gays the founders of Western civilization were. For example, the most elite troops of ancient Athens. They were organized into a group of 150 gay couples. They were the most feared soldiers in ancient Greece after the Spartans, who themselves had no problems with gays.While on the subject, the fact that the SPARTANS of all people were actually more tolerant than Americans on something is disturbing.
Over the years, I have attended a number of “gay weddings” in the United States and never realized that I was observing a crime being committed. (Until this became an issue recently).
Republicans: You can make this issue go away by passing Universal Health Care. And getting rid of marriage tax/penalty.
Tell all that to Clinton and the assholes in the Gingrich era congress.Defense of Marriage Act, 1996:1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.Mind you, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which supporters feared would force states to recognize same-sex marriage, may still be applied someday to overturn that law, but only if someone, like the Lovings, actually files a complaint that gets that far…
Universal health care would be nice, but there is still the issue of basic human rights.
Joe,I don’t think any such legislation can ultimately stand up against the basic constitutional tests.
“The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”You have a law that says that?
I think that’ll about do it, Greg. You’ve been added to both mine and Kate’s.(Forgive the mess, every time I find a way around WordPress’ blockage of the “textarea” tag, they find a way to close the hole. Bastards.)
There will always be people against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
You earned that squishy good feeling, Greg. When do we get the t-shirts? Make them in women’s cut too and I think we can get that in front of more interested eyes than billboards would give us.
Sadly, it’s too long to fit on a thong.
Janie, I’m fighting the urge to ask how many eyes that would get.
On mine, specifically?I’m publicly polyamorous, so more than two.:)
Well, yes, but that doesn’t make how many a less impertinent question. And really, I think impertinence is more your schtick than mine. You certainly do it better. 🙂
Thanks.I’m not good with boundaries.;)
Joe Shelby, my memory of that time was the United States was leaning very conservative, the whole religious right, silent majority thing and some states had gone as far as banning marriages in their constitutions.Some say that DOMA was a tactic to placate those calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The idea being, it is much easier to get a law overturned than a constitutional amendment.I’d have to agree, a tactical withdrawl is sometimes necessary.
In the top picture… in the back… is that… Scott McClellan? Jeff Gannon, eat your heart out!
You know, the whole gay marriage thing is really not a big deal. I guess it happens often here in Ontario but it’s never newsworthy and only a small lunatic fringe seems to think it’s controversial – most of whom have never met a gay person in their lives.Heck, our provincial Health Minister married his gay buddy last summer and nobody batted an eye – press coverage was minimal as for any public person’s wedding.My personal opinion? Why should gay people have all the fun and get off Scot-free? They should have to suffer the way depressed people do.