PDA

View Full Version : N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages



MedicCook
05-29-2008, 03:53 AM
N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Report: Paterson tells agencies to comply; Calif. couples may wed June 17

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/ap/a6f23ec6-d39a-4228-8a09-9b35b60020bf.hmedium.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO - As California set a date for gay couples to begin getting married in the state, it was revealed Wednesday that New York's governor has ordered state agencies to begin recognizing gay marriages performed in states and countries where they're legal.

Same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere would be recognized in New York in response to a state court ruling this year, Gov. David Paterson's spokeswoman said Wednesday.

State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.

Paterson spoke of the changes in a videotaped message shown to gay community leaders earlier this month, according to The New York Times. He said the move is "a strong step toward marriage equality."

Paterson's legal counsel issued a written directive to state agencies on May 14. The directive says there will likely need to be changes in some agency regulations. Among those are rules affecting inheritance rights for pensions and property.

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies.

The memo states that failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, the memo warns.

Bypassing Legislature
Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, which was first reported by The Times.

The February appellate decision involved the case of a woman whose female partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24857315

sws4420
05-29-2008, 03:56 AM
However, he can't see it happening.

MedicCook
05-29-2008, 04:09 AM
Ba Dum Ching

Thomas the Solitary
05-29-2008, 04:12 AM
http://www.ephemera.org/images/473.jpg

http://images.cafepress.com/product/9904803_240x240_Front.jpg

MedicCook
05-29-2008, 04:13 AM
This is great for divorce lawyers.

Thomas the Solitary
05-29-2008, 04:15 AM
Because it's not only lesbians.

Equal opportunity and all that rot.

Wasn't it on this board that I read about how they're having problems with divorces because the marriage isn't recognized in any other state?

or was that in a newspaper at work?

sws4420
05-29-2008, 04:17 AM
It was probably here. We're far superior than any newspaper you have in Michigan.

http://www.s0lidgr0und.org/showthread.php?t=20833

MedicCook
05-29-2008, 04:22 AM
All they have to do is file for the divorce in the State that they got married in.

Thomas the Solitary
05-29-2008, 04:24 AM
It was probably here. We're far superior than any newspaper you have in Michigan.

http://www.s0lidgr0und.org/showthread.php?t=20833
We get the New York Times at work, most days.

Also, there's a snag with filing for divorce in a state that you're not a resident in.

What I don't get is why it's a problem, if your "married" in a state that doesn't recognize it anyway, what's the problem?

MedicCook
05-29-2008, 04:25 AM
The main issues I see is assets in the split.

Thomas the Solitary
05-29-2008, 04:34 AM
The main issues I see is assets in the split.

God do I wish I could come up with something other than bold type.

sws4420
05-29-2008, 04:34 AM
[-]Use this one[/-]

Thomas the Solitary
05-29-2008, 04:43 AM
I mean in the humor area, not the typographical area.

I like to use strike through sparingly, because it can very rapidly be over used and not funny. It can be used to great comedic effect when applied well, and lightly.

This time was not a prime target for "the strike through comic moment."

sws4420
05-29-2008, 04:48 AM
Sorry. :kickcan:

MedicCook
05-29-2008, 04:49 AM
Is this better for it?

sws4420
05-29-2008, 04:50 AM
:offtopic:

Dave
05-29-2008, 10:40 AM
Damn. If all of the female couples looked like the ones in the main article, I'd be all for lesbian marriages.

LLL
05-29-2008, 10:52 AM
Why does everybody find it hard to recognize gay marriage? I can easily see when two guys are kissing they are gay. When two babes are fondling each other I make the assumption they have more than a passing interest in each other. On the other hand, I'm sure people easily recognize my wife and I are straight when we are seen together. This ain't all that difficult to recognize, now is it? :rotflmao:

CtRebel
05-29-2008, 08:16 PM
Damn. If all of the female couples looked like the ones in the main article, I'd be all for lesbian marriages.

hellsyeah! ill 2nd that! :jamie: