Making Sense of the New York Marriage Situation

When the New York Times broke a story on May 29 that the governor of New York State had directed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages made in other jurisdictions as subject to all of the rights and privileges of any other marriage two weeks before, the story made headlines around the country and the world.

According to several people on both sides of the issue, the directive effectively legalized gay marriage for those New Yorkers willing to travel to California, the Low Countries, Spain or (soon) much of Scandinavia. Not only that, but two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, border much of northern New York State and allow gay marriage.

Niagra Falls, the traditional honeymoon destination for New Yorkers, may revive--only this time, on the other side of the border, as couples rush to take advantage of their new status. But behind the decision, there are as many questions as answers.

Here are some of the issues that this controversial measure raises:
? Why did he do it? The governor was reacting to a decision by a state Appelate Court in Rochester that ruled that the partner of a state employee married in Canada could not be denied the same benefits as any other spouse. But the governor has had longstanding and close ties with gay groups and has made no secret of his support for gay marriage.

? Will it stick? The state's highest court had ruled previously, in response to a New York City judge's ruling in favor of recognizing gay marriages, that the issue had to be decided by the Legislature. The Times has reported that the leader of the State Senate hasn't decided whether to challenge the governor.

However, the state's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, told this reporter at a press briefing when he was running for office that he supports gay marriage and hinted that he would recuse himself if forced to argue against it. That doesn't bode well for the opponents.

Also, local politics are involved. The State Senate is only two seats away from a Democratic majority, and the GOP is on the wane in the state. The lower house, the State Assembly, is solidly Democratic and has already voted in favor of gay marriage. The Republican members of the Senate may not want to tackle such a controversial issue in an election year; unlike many states, the voters appear to favor gay marriage.

? What about private opposition? Yes, some groups are unhappy, such as Orthodox Jews and Catholics--two powerful blocs in the state. The Conservative Party, which wields some power (New York is a multi-party state) is pressuring Republicans. And a group called New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms may form a coalition to appeal the measure--and the Rochester ruling--in court if Monroe County, where Rochester is located, declines to do so, as looks likely.

But the Times, in a news analysis, points out that opposition would be difficult without a state Defense of Marriage Act. All Patterson was doing was recognizing marriages in another jurisdiction--on its face, hardly controversial (if one doesn't consider who is being married in those situations).

"We have a now-unbroken line of cases saying that out-of-state-marriages by same-sex couples must be respected in New York," a Lambda Legal lawyer told the newspaper.

? How far-reaching are the effects of the directive? In a word, profound. As Press Connects puts it, "the partner of a gay police officer killed in the line of duty would get death benefits, and a partner of a liquor-store owner who died would get to keep the license."

It affects joint filing of state taxes, rights of succession to an apartment or a lease. It will mean that a spouse will have say in medical care, disposal of a body, or even the processing of a will. In short, with time it will reach into many, many aspects of life beyond the government.

? What about the future? To both opponents and supporters, if Patterson's directive stands, New York looks poised to become the next state to legalize gay marriage. The reasoning is simple: If anyone married anywhere else is entitled to recognition of marriage, it doesn't make sense to deny the same to people who don't or can't leave the state.

It's this last point that makes Patterson's directive so far-reaching. If New York's Legislature legalizes gay marriage, it will be the first time a legislative body will have done so. Vermont and New Jersey, however, may beat it to the altar. Both states have civil unions, and the sentiment in both states is leaning toward full marriage.