So I just heard that NY will recognize gay marriage performed elsewhere, but that you still can't actually get married in NY if you are gay.

Is this a way around some constitutional amendment in NY or something? It seems to me if they would recognize a gay marriage that they would allow it to be performed there too.

Any of our local experts have a comment?



-Craig

Our governor is very sympathetic to same-sex marriage, but Assembly Speaker Joe Bruno is not letting the underlying bill get to the floor for a vote.

So, I think this is what Paterson can do until marriage equality legislation is passed.

ETA: Oops - Bruno isn't the Assembly Speaker, he's the Senate leader.

I'll bet I can guess the political parties of each of those guys.

So do you have to do anything to get recognized now?

-Craig

It's hard for me to tease apart the benefits I receive as a university employee from the benefits I receive as a New York State employee.

As far as NYS tax filing (and how is that possible without federal recognition??), and things like spousal benefits, I don't know yet. To whom would we present our license? A lot of things to figure out, once the dust settles.

need to realize that families are more than a man a woman and 2.3 kids. As far as I am concerned the laws in all states should be that you pick a partner, one partner, who you want to spend your life with. It should be just like the Federal Fair Housing Act where there is no discrimation against, race, color, religion, gender, handicap, familial status or national origin. The title of the individual party should not be "husband" or "wife" , but instead "spouse".
There. Done. Easy.
Those oldtimer, stuck-in-their-ways, arrogant, homophobics, would just have to get over it and live and let live.
Peace,
Stella

I'm not homophobic, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I do care about public policy, which is what it becomes when it's taken out of the bedroom and into the law.

Actually, I think the government out to be taken out of the picture entirely. "Marriage" ought to be a religious function governed by whatever church the participants belong to. The government could set up "parnership" laws that have nothing to do with sexual relationships. If Hojon and I want to buy a house together we shouldn't have to sleep with each other to do it.

You would define your marriage in terms of what you do in bed? And, if you go through a dry spell, has your marriage been annulled? Are you saying your marriage is nothing more than sex?

I agree that the biggest part of this mess is that the sacred and the secular are far too enmeshed.

I once floated the idea of a "Signifigant Other" legislation that would supplement the legal title of marriage with another legal partnership that would enable anyone to have a relatonship that house the same entitlements as a marriage, or more, or less.

In my mind, there's no reason to simply stop with same sex couples. Years ago as a single man when I worked in a benefit rich job, I was paid $20.00 per hour plus benefits. The fellow next to me had three children, a wife and was paid the same amount per hour as me.

The fellow next to me received benefits for himself AND his wife, AND children. He also was taxed LESS and recieved a government supplement EVERY month based on his income and the amount children he had.

Now I don't begrudge my work mate the fact that he could use a little extra what with all those mouths to feed. What I do begrudge is that not only was he paid more than me for the same job, unless I was willing to enter into the same kind of partnership that he was, I couldn't even avail myself of those extra benefits.

Enter "Signifigant Other" legislation, a law that would allow any single person to attatch benefits accrual from their own efforts to another of their choice. It would be different from a marriage in that it need not be necessarily a relationship founded on marital love. Nor would it be exclusive, you could both enjoin "Signifigant Other" legislation AND marriage.

For me, back then, I could have use SO legislation to bestow my benefit package on my Mom. That's what I would have done. But no need to limit that, you could use SOL (lol) to bestow your benefits on your best friend, your cousin, your neighbor, anyone you chose. Further to this, the legislation could be as varied as necessary and as binding as you wanted it to be.

Let's talk about redefining a family and see how that fits into the idea of a marriage or  SO contract.

It has stuck in my head since then. I like it. It would also prevent the kind of marital contortions people do in order to get coverage for themselves, or someone else.

Under certain circumstances you could get some of the benefits for your mom (like the tax breaks) but it isn't necessarily easy. My wife and I can own property in common (which means its hers if I die, without a lot of headache) based on a ceremony in a KH thirty + years ago. If I want to do that outside a marital relationship you're talking hours and $$$ with lawyers at minimum. And that still doesn't settle issues like spousal consent for medical care.

And yes the sexual component in marriage is significant. Even most (if not all states) will annual a marriage that has not been consumated. (Don't get me started on dry spells - my marriage is still recovering from my trip to rehab and concurrent legal troubles).

We're all saying the same thing.
It is not right to have discrimation against those who choose a partner and have a relationship that is not, for lack of a better word, traditional. When two people who choose to live together (man and woman) get all sorts of perks like tax breaks, reduced healthcare premiums, reduced countryclub membership fee, etc. because they are recognized as a family, and two people other people (same sex) do not get these perks, it is discrimination. That has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Does it really make that much of a difference if they call it "marriage"?