Gay marriage: good news and bad news

I meant to write about this over the weekend but didn't have time ... anyway, we learned the other day about a state that is handling the gay marriage issue the right way, and one -- yep, Florida -- taking yet another step toward increased state-sanctioned bigotry.

In New York, a state appellate court ruled that the state "must recognize same-sex marriages legally consecrated elsewhere."

This appears to be the first appellate ruling in the country mandating that a state must recognize the same-sex marriage of a couple legally wed elsewhere, according to officials with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

"Today I know the legal world looks at my marriage as valid, as something we're not going to sweep under the rug, as something that doesn't end," said [Patricia] Martinez, a Chili resident who filed suit in 2005 to try to get her marriage legally blessed in New York. "Because we're not going to go away."

Martinez, a word-processing supervisor at Monroe Community College, sued the college in 2005 after it refused to extend health care benefits to her spouse. Her lawyer, Jeffrey Wicks of Rochester, argued that the couple was the victim of discrimination because the MCC benefits were allowed to heterosexual married couples.

At that time, the college's contract with the Civil Service Employees Union did not recognize domestic partnerships. The MCC contract with CSEA now does.

In July 2006, state Supreme Court Justice Harold L. Galloway dismissed Martinez's lawsuit, saying that the state does not acknowledge same-sex marriages. The state Legislature "currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman," Galloway wrote.

But in a unanimous 5-to-0 decision, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court decided Friday that the Legislature has not denied "full faith and credit to same-sex marriages validly solemnized in another state."

With the ruling, Wicks said, the appellate judges simply applied past New York legal precedent. The judges noted in the ruling that "for well over a century" New York has recognized marriages solemnized elsewhere unless they were cases of polygamy or incest. The state, for instance, has recognized marriages that could not be consecrated in New York, such as common-law marriages valid in other states, the judges ruled.

"This is not new law," Wicks said. "This is old law. This is trial law."

Wow. A court ruling on precedent and not legislating from the bench. How different. Too bad the SCOTUS didn't do the same thing on December 11, 2000, eh?

Meanwhile, here in America's Wang™, not long after I proclaimed that the gay-bashing marriage amendment was dead in the water, it's been resurrected, as Betty Cracker explains here:

Stemberger, who makes his living suing rental car companies on behalf of tourists who develop mysterious and difficult to document soft-tissue injuries after fender-benders, enlisted the aid of numerous pastors, who directed their sheep to sign up for the homo-hate-fest. As of yesterday, it looks like they got it done. Here's Stemberger's announcement on his website:

"We are grateful to God first, and to our supporters second, for this amazing victory. What our people did was simply remarkable. They collected 92,000 petitions in about 13 days. That is about 7,000 petitions per day. No paid petition collectors could ever match the force of this effort. This is real proof for grassroots momentum for marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Florida."

"Children need a mom and a dad. It is just that simple. When you create a same sex marriage, you are simultaneously creating a same sex family. Same sex marriages subject children to a vast, untested, social experiment. Homosexual marriage proponents must take the position that there is no inherent value or importance to human femininity and human masculinity when it comes to the socialization of children. Dad and mom's [sic] are optional. This is the assumption of their position."

See, it's all about the chiiiiiilllllllldren. And God. But let's unpack a fraction of the dishonesty in those two paragraphs. First of all, as I said, same-sex marriage is illegal in Florida already. And by laws enacted with the assistance of Stemberger, there are children who are languishing in foster care right now who cannot be adopted by gay couples. Stemberger cares so much about those children and their grounding in "human feminimity and masculinity" that he'd prefer they grow up as wards of the state than find a home with a pair of homos. Whatta guy.

To reiterate, this is nothing more than another attempt to codify bigotry. I've done just fine at fucking up my two marriages myself, and they certainly didn't need "protection" from Teh Gaiii. Perhaps Stemberger is concerned that, you know, his wife might leave him for another woman, or maybe he's another wingnut closet case like Mark Foley or Ted Haggard or Larry Craig or Lindsey Graham*, but gay couples' ability to marry or not won't have any effect one way or the other on either situation. Too bad Stemberger apparently is so insecure that he doesn't realize this.

So, we win some, we lose some. Congratulations to New York, and I don't mean for the Super Bowl. But although we in Florida may have to deal with the Hate Amendment in November, we certainly don't have to pass it.

UPDATE (3:31 pm 2/4/08): The lovely and talented Eschaton commenter ErinPDX informs us that her state, Oregon, today became the ninth state to recognize some form of domestic partner rights. Congratulations! Maybe reason will prevail over insanity after all ...

UPDATE (5:53 pm 2/4/08): Special thanks to Pat Martinez, the plaintiff in the New York case mentioned above, for stopping by this humble blog. Very cool.

Pat is a blogger, too. And congratulations to you and your spouse as well!

---

* Okay, I don't know for sure about Graham, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate.