Comity keeps coming. In Rochester, New York, a five-judge panel of Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court said same-sex marriages solemnized out of New York are legal marriages in New York.
In legal terms, there is no impediment. The best coverage so far has been in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02samesex.html?_r=1&oref=sloginIn an amusing twist, the judges said because there is no law forbidding it, it is allowed. That's a refreshing change from jurists' attitude in decisions in other states. Often, they have taken the old Soviet tack — if it isn't specifically permitted, it is forbidden.
In Martinez v. County of Monroe, a community college employee just wanted to add her wife, Lisa Ann Golden, whom she married in Canada in 2004, to her health insurance. The college's HR director turned her down and Martinez ended up suing in 2006. State Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway dismissed the suit. His ruling said that New York “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman.”
http://nyclu.org/files/martinez_decision_020108.pdfAs another bit of incidental humor, the HR director had that old regressive attitude. The college's contract with the employees union didn't specifically list same-sex marriages, so she denied the benefit. Subsequently, the contract has been upgraded and now does.
More:
http://massmarrier.blogspot.com/2008/02/ny-courts-okay-out-of-ny-gay-marriages.html