Friday, September 14, 2007

Gay marriage in NY + Arthur Branch

A New York Supreme Court determined that it is unconstitutional (under the state constitution) for New York not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

People familiar with the courts in New York will immediately recognize why this isn't terribly exciting: unlike other states and federal courts, In New York the "Supreme Court" is the trial level. Still appealable.

It's interesting that in just a couple weeks two big trial decisions regarding gay marriage came down in separate states.

In similar news, I am aware of Arthur Branch's, um, disappointing statements regarding gay marriage. The self-described Federalist is uncomfortable with just this type of thing: A state judge determining that a state has to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. He supports (or at least used to support) civil unions at the state level. I'm curious to know what he thinks about the Department of the Treasury or Social Security Administration recognizing them as well.

Like I have always said, whether it's called marriage by the state is irrelevant, it's the recognition of civil benefits for same sex partners that matters.

Further, I find it interesting that some people think that civil unions would hurt the push for marriage. I realize that having a separate but equal institution seems unpleasant, but with the progress we have seen in just 10 years, do we really think that it would stop with civil unions anyway?

Update: Mea Cupla, I forgot to link to the news story about the NY court ruling. You can read about it here.


jonathan said...

I don't know that Thompson's amendment is necessary to begin with. He seems concerned that a gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts would have to be recognized in every other state in the Union (U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld numerous public policy exceptions to legal actions taken in one state that are held invalid in another state. If Massachusetts decided to validate gay marriage, Texas wouldn't be compelled to recognize those marriages because such marriages go against an established state policy.

It would be interesting for a state to sanction "civil unions" between gays and see how the IRS treated that "union" (e.g., standardized deductions, exemptions, etc. that generally go with married couples).

Tim in Italy said...

I hate this. I absolutely hate it. These discussions defining precise legalities are taking place for one reason and one reason only - to pander to a religious base that insists on living in the stone age...

I'm sorry. It's not me, it's the way my brain is wired. I don't really want to be a liberal. I've prayed, fasted, asked for God's help, but I'm still a liberal. Over the week-end, I was picked up for trying to solicit liberal opinions from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom. It's obvious I need help. I've decided to join a residency program that guarantees to change my orientation from liberal to conservative. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Andronicus said...

Hey Tim....that residency program you are talking know, the one that will turn you into a conservative??

It's called "L a w S c h o o l" and most major universities offer course work in this area. You also can reside in places called, dorms, where lots of students, freed from the confines, mores and restraints of parents, seek to discover new and life-expanding activities. Sanctioned veal-cake pens, if you will. Fresh and ripe for the plucking. At will.

You really should check out branch nearest you.

Tim in Italy said...

Hey Pink,

Thanks for the link to my blog. I'd like to return the favor, if that's alright. Otherwise, take care of your tuna and write when you can.