Gay Union Updates: Small Victories

While the rest of the country was focused in on the U.S. Senate's failure to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, advocates for same-sex couples' right to marry in New York recently won their own small victory. In a decision handed down by New Paltz Town Justice Judith M. Reichler on July 13, charges against two clergywomen for marrying same-sex couples without their first having obtained a license were dropped.

The ruling follows a similar decision made in June on charges against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who kick-started the gay marriage movement in New York when he presided over the weddings of nearly two dozen same-sex couples in February. When he was charged that same week with several misdemeanor counts of marrying couples with no marriage licenses, West found himself unable to fulfill the promise he'd made to continue performing such weddings each subsequent weekend.

Into the breach came clergywomen Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, who took West's place the following weekend, presiding over several same-sex weddings. They, too, soon found themselves charged with 13 counts of officiating at weddings for couples without marriage licenses, charges that could have landed them in jail for up to one year. Instead, Justice Reichler held that because the New York constitution guarantees equal rights to all its citizens — including its gay citizens — and because one of those rights is the right to marry, it was unconstitutional for the couples Greenleaf and Sangrey married to have been denied marriage licenses by the State of New York. Thus, she reasoned, the clergywomen were justified in their actions.

The decision by Reichler now joins that of Judge Jonathan Katz (also of New Paltz Town Court), who presided over Mayor West's criminal case, in finding that New York's constitution gives same-sex couples the same right to marry as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Although these decisions aren't binding on that issue, they do add to the growing file of case law in New York supporting in general the rights of those in same-sex relationships. For instance, last year, a landmark ruling in a wrongful death and malpractice case gave one man, John Langan, the right to sue a hospital based on his live-in, gay partner's death following the allegedly botched medical care he received after he was run down by a car. That car was driven by a man who injured several pedestrians, as well as killing Langan's partner, over the course of a days'-long hit-and-run rampage through the streets of Manhattan. Langan and the deceased, Neal Spicehandler, had been joined in a Vermont civil union ceremony, which was found to be a valid basis to confer standing to sue on Langan. The ruling in the Nassau County Supreme Court that allowed Langan's case to go forward is now on appeal.

NYC Contractors Must Give Benefits to Domestic Partners

Another victory: The New York City Council has overridden Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto of a city code provision that will require contractors doing business with the city to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. The council members overrode Bloomberg's veto with 4/5 of the votes. The new law, which goes into effect 120 days after its June 28 passage, applies to companies with city contracts valued $100,000. Mayor Bloomberg has said that his office will likely file suit to stop enforcement of the new benefits law because he believes the city has no legal right to force its social programs on businesses outside the city through the contract procurement process.

New Jersey Begins Registering Couples

Nearby, in New Jersey, the law allowing same-sex partners to register with the state to receive domestic partner status in the eyes of the law went into effect July 10. Heterosexual partners over the age of 42 may also register under the new law and receive the same benefits, such as the rights to visit one another in the hospital and to make health care decisions on each other's behalf. Registered partners will not have the same financial entanglement issues that married couples do, such as automatic joint ownership of land purchased during the union or responsibility for each other's debts.

National Developments

The U.S. Senate surprised no one when it declined to advance a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the United States. The July 14 vote was nearly split, with 50 members voting against and 48 voting for moving forward in the process of changing the Constitution. Sixty votes would have been required to move to a vote on the amendment itself. Two Senators who abstained from the vote were Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

The push toward enacting the change intensified after civil libertarians in various municipalities around the country began performing marriages for same-sex couples and after a Massachusetts court declared that state's prohibition against gays marrying one another unconstitutional under state law. Many of those who voted against the change did so ostensibly for reasons unrelated to any beliefs held on the actual issue of gay marriage. For example, in his statement on the floor of the Senate before the vote was taken, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said, “[T]he Constitution is a document that should only be amended with great caution … The language we are debating was introduced less that four months ago. It is not clear what text we would even be voting on. The proposed language changes almost daily, like the weather. The amendment was not voted on by the Committee of jurisdiction and we do not have the benefit of a Committee report laying out the pros and cons of the amendment.” The House could still bring the issue of the amendment back up in the fall session.

Also on July 14, the House Judiciary Committee approved by a 21-to-13 margin legislation that would ensure state's legislatures, and not the judicial branch, continue to decide state marriage policy. H.R. 3313, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) and amended by the Committee, removes the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear cases involving the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows states to decide whether to legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses. In a statement from Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), issued after the legislation cleared the committee, Sensenbrenner said, “This legislation protects the people's right to decide state marriage policy under DOMA, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Clinton signed into law. The Constitution allows the exercise of 'judicial power,' but it does not grant the federal courts unchecked power to define the limits of its own power. Integral to the American constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Far from violating the 'separation of powers,' as some have alleged, this legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very 'checks and balances' provided for in the Constitution.”

Editor's Note: For a daily update on same-sex marriage and adoption developments in all 50 states as well as on the national level, go to www.ljnonline.com and access the interactive same-sex marriage map.

While the rest of the country was focused in on the U.S. Senate's failure to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, advocates for same-sex couples' right to marry in New York recently won their own small victory. In a decision handed down by New Paltz Town Justice Judith M. Reichler on July 13, charges against two clergywomen for marrying same-sex couples without their first having obtained a license were dropped.

The ruling follows a similar decision made in June on charges against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who kick-started the gay marriage movement in New York when he presided over the weddings of nearly two dozen same-sex couples in February. When he was charged that same week with several misdemeanor counts of marrying couples with no marriage licenses, West found himself unable to fulfill the promise he'd made to continue performing such weddings each subsequent weekend.

Into the breach came clergywomen Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, who took West's place the following weekend, presiding over several same-sex weddings. They, too, soon found themselves charged with 13 counts of officiating at weddings for couples without marriage licenses, charges that could have landed them in jail for up to one year. Instead, Justice Reichler held that because the New York constitution guarantees equal rights to all its citizens — including its gay citizens — and because one of those rights is the right to marry, it was unconstitutional for the couples Greenleaf and Sangrey married to have been denied marriage licenses by the State of New York. Thus, she reasoned, the clergywomen were justified in their actions.

The decision by Reichler now joins that of Judge Jonathan Katz (also of New Paltz Town Court), who presided over Mayor West's criminal case, in finding that New York's constitution gives same-sex couples the same right to marry as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Although these decisions aren't binding on that issue, they do add to the growing file of case law in New York supporting in general the rights of those in same-sex relationships. For instance, last year, a landmark ruling in a wrongful death and malpractice case gave one man, John Langan, the right to sue a hospital based on his live-in, gay partner's death following the allegedly botched medical care he received after he was run down by a car. That car was driven by a man who injured several pedestrians, as well as killing Langan's partner, over the course of a days'-long hit-and-run rampage through the streets of Manhattan. Langan and the deceased, Neal Spicehandler, had been joined in a Vermont civil union ceremony, which was found to be a valid basis to confer standing to sue on Langan. The ruling in the Nassau County Supreme Court that allowed Langan's case to go forward is now on appeal.

NYC Contractors Must Give Benefits to Domestic Partners

Another victory: The New York City Council has overridden Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto of a city code provision that will require contractors doing business with the city to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. The council members overrode Bloomberg's veto with 4/5 of the votes. The new law, which goes into effect 120 days after its June 28 passage, applies to companies with city contracts valued $100,000. Mayor Bloomberg has said that his office will likely file suit to stop enforcement of the new benefits law because he believes the city has no legal right to force its social programs on businesses outside the city through the contract procurement process.

New Jersey Begins Registering Couples

Nearby, in New Jersey, the law allowing same-sex partners to register with the state to receive domestic partner status in the eyes of the law went into effect July 10. Heterosexual partners over the age of 42 may also register under the new law and receive the same benefits, such as the rights to visit one another in the hospital and to make health care decisions on each other's behalf. Registered partners will not have the same financial entanglement issues that married couples do, such as automatic joint ownership of land purchased during the union or responsibility for each other's debts.

National Developments

The U.S. Senate surprised no one when it declined to advance a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the United States. The July 14 vote was nearly split, with 50 members voting against and 48 voting for moving forward in the process of changing the Constitution. Sixty votes would have been required to move to a vote on the amendment itself. Two Senators who abstained from the vote were Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

The push toward enacting the change intensified after civil libertarians in various municipalities around the country began performing marriages for same-sex couples and after a Massachusetts court declared that state's prohibition against gays marrying one another unconstitutional under state law. Many of those who voted against the change did so ostensibly for reasons unrelated to any beliefs held on the actual issue of gay marriage. For example, in his statement on the floor of the Senate before the vote was taken, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said, “[T]he Constitution is a document that should only be amended with great caution … The language we are debating was introduced less that four months ago. It is not clear what text we would even be voting on. The proposed language changes almost daily, like the weather. The amendment was not voted on by the Committee of jurisdiction and we do not have the benefit of a Committee report laying out the pros and cons of the amendment.” The House could still bring the issue of the amendment back up in the fall session.

Also on July 14, the House Judiciary Committee approved by a 21-to-13 margin legislation that would ensure state's legislatures, and not the judicial branch, continue to decide state marriage policy. H.R. 3313, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) and amended by the Committee, removes the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear cases involving the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows states to decide whether to legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses. In a statement from Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), issued after the legislation cleared the committee, Sensenbrenner said, “This legislation protects the people's right to decide state marriage policy under DOMA, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Clinton signed into law. The Constitution allows the exercise of 'judicial power,' but it does not grant the federal courts unchecked power to define the limits of its own power. Integral to the American constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Far from violating the 'separation of powers,' as some have alleged, this legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very 'checks and balances' provided for in the Constitution.”

Editor's Note: For a daily update on same-sex marriage and adoption developments in all 50 states as well as on the national level, go to www.ljnonline.com and access the interactive same-sex marriage map.