Posted on 08/18/2007 1:09:36 PM PDT by bahblahbah
In a landmark case, an American court has ruled that gay couples who tie the knot in Canada can be treated as legally married in the state of New York.
Justice Joan Lefkowitz of the New York Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex marriages performed outside the country are valid, even though gay New Yorkers cannot be legally married in their home state.
This is the first time Canadian same-sex marriage laws have triumphed in U.S. court, according to Alphonso David, a lawyer for the gay rights group Lambda Legal, which intervened in the case.
“Couples can go to sleep at night without worrying about the security of their status,” says David.
“I feel vindicated,” his client, Robert Voorheis, told reporters after the March 12 ruling. “When I say, `I'm married,' I'm married.”
Voorheis and his partner, both of Yonkers, N.Y., were married in Niagara Falls, Ont., four years ago.
“This is extremely important,” says Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor and expert on the issue.
If the ruling holds up on appeal, “it will mean for all practical purposes, same-sex marriage is legal in the state of New York,” because people can easily cross the border to get married, said Koppelman.
While the lower-court ruling is not technically binding on other state courts, it's significant in that “it says you can recognize a (same-sex marriage) even if locally you can't perform it,” and lays out historical examples of that recognition, explains Mark Strasser, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, who has written extensively on same-sex marriage.
The case centred on a 2006 order by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano that county officials must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
A conservative Arizona-based group called the Alliance Defense Fund took Spano to court, arguing his order violated the state's constitution and municipal laws.
Last summer, the New York Court of Appeal upheld the state's century-old definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
But Lefkowitz found that ruling did not address the issue of marriages performed outside the state.
She then applied the legal test of comity, the principle that countries should recognize each other's laws on marriage and other such issues as long as they don't offend community values or run strongly against public policy. (Polygamy, for example, is accepted in some countries but not in the U.S.).
She noted that, historically, New York has on many occasions recognized foreign marriages that could not have been legally performed in the state.
She found there has been a sea change in attitudes toward gay marriage, noting the “expanding recognition of rights accorded homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals.”
Both the state's attorney general and comptroller have publicly supported the extension of spousal rights to same-sex partners, and other court rulings and laws have recently granted gay couples inheritance and adoption rights, she noted, concluding that same-sex marriages do not offend community values.
“We're very disappointed in the ruling,” says Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund. He plans to appeal, noting other New York courts have recently denied spousal status in two similar cases. Those rulings are being appealed.
Court cases testing the validity of Canadian same-sex marriages are rare in the U.S., where most states have Defense of Marriage Acts defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and specifically forbidding the recognition of out-of-state gay marriages.
New York is one of only four states with no such law on the books.
Only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage, although gays can access some of the benefits of marriage through civil unions or “domestic partnerships” in states such as California and Vermont.
None of these arrangements are recognized by the U.S. federal government, which passed a Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
...but we were told - by Republicans no less - that we didn’t need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So I guess we don’t.
Is there any treaty to this effect?
http://www.therobingroom.com/newyork/Judge.aspx?id=646
Is this not prevented by Clinton’s DOMA Act?
Bad ruling.
How thweet...
'Splains volumes--at least about the judge's community.
Is the judge 'straight'?
The day is going to come when the Supreme Court hands down a Roe vs. Wade type judicial fiat stripping states of the authority to “discriminate” based on gender in their marriage laws. This ruling will be followed by an assortment of Doe vs. Bolton type fiats federalizing the issue completely.
When that happens, libertarians will say something like this: “Well, gosh, I really don’t like these rulings...but at least we didn’t clutter up the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Amendment which would have violated states’ rights.”
No. She's a Democrat. ;-)
LOL! I should have seen that one coming...
this is exactly why we need a Federal marriage amendment, which Fred Thompson has promised to pass.
Wait a minute. I thought that things like polygamous marriages that are OK in Muslim countries are NOT recognized here in the States. How can this be legal?
Fred Thompson would have no problem with this. he is fiercly opposed to a Constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage.
Alone among the top tier candidates, only Romney supports an amendment protecting traditional marriage.
His own life and marriage prove his commitment to it.
Ah, excellent question! It’s not. Then again, when have liberals been even remotely interested in trying to follow the law when they’re pushing their agenda?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.