[Update: Essay on this case.]
Good news from New York. I know I have not spoke much about local politics and such, since honestly it does not seem too exciting -- I did get a robocall from my local congressperson (a pretty consistent lib) endorsing Hillary Clinton. Good to hear from you Joe. I'm not (yet) voting for someone who, among other things, still is trying to defend throwing a drunk the car keys in 2002. So sorry. Anyway, my local assemblywoman is a nice enough looking Hispanic woman from a political family, while my polling place is around the corner, basically. The local councilman also a credible enough soul, who went to the same high school as my sisters (not at the same time). Still, nothing much happens. Or, so it seems.
[BTC News now supports Obama with the not too enthusiastic logic of "well, he's better than Clinton" ... not that s/he was too pleased with Edwards, sorta going that way by default. This sort of thing does concern, but hey, every candidate is fine! The Republicans all stink! We will all be happy with either one of the Dems!!! This message sponsored by Air America and Mark Green, failed candidate for mayor and attorney general. I'm voting for Edwards. Force me to compromise in November.]
Oh, New York. TPM suggests Clinton -- no shock -- is favored here basically by ten points, give or take. This makes sense, not only because she is after all our senator (doing a fairly good job, I think, as good as the sanctimonious other guy, who voted for the Attorney General ... now supplying subpoenas to journalists when not taking TPM off their mailing lists ... why not stay there?), but favors careerist Dems who aren't toooo liberal. After all, she has that essential Ann Coulter (aka "conservative hatchet babe" or "right wing loon") endorsement down. Seriously, Michael Bloomberg is a prime representative of the sort we like -- socially liberal, but conservative enough on other things to satisfy various "independents"* and Republicans.
I digress. The point of this post was to reference an appellate ruling (one level below the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court ... the "Supreme" court is the lowest) recognizing out of state (or country) same sex marriages per a “marriage recognition rule.” To wit:
In the case before the appellate division in Rochester, Ms. Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden, formalized their longstanding relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001, and were married in Ontario on July 5, 2004.
A few days later, Ms. Martinez applied to Monroe Community College for health care benefits for her spouse. In November 2004, the college’s director of human resources, Sherry Ralston, denied the application, contending that the state did not recognize the marriage as a matter of law and public policy.
But, the court held the state did -- on such grounds -- recognize out of state marriages that the legislature did not specifically ban. This is why various states had to go out of their way to pass measures, some incorporated in state constitutions, to discriminate against out of state marriages of this sort. Namely, those from Canada and Massachusetts, the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause having a public policy exception that allows this sort of thing. [Or, rather, it is currently so interpreted.] This sort of step by step recognition of equality for same sex couples is often the way such liberties are guaranteed.
One attempt, locally, failed:
In 2004, the Council adopted legislation sponsored by Ms. Quinn [the lesbian City Council President] that would have required large companies doing business with the city to provide equal job benefits to domestic partners. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg vetoed the bill, and while the Council overrode the veto, the mayor said it violated state and federal laws and would prove costly to taxpayers. He sued successfully to block it in a case decided in 2006 by the Court of Appeals.
The whole matter again reminds me of how I dislike limited views of religion and morality, including public policy growing out of such views. Religion is a matter of determining what basic things matter, what you will be "tied" to (the likely origins of the word "religion"), and determine is sacred. This includes various events, which can be understood as sorts of sacraments. Marriage is one such event, the meanings given to it almost as diverse as the numbers of them each given year. The justice in denying an evenhanded application of state benefits to this class of married couples is lacking.
Even if we have a President who wants to amend the f-ing Constitution to do so.*
You believe that everyone should worship God in the way revealed to him. But that is not the way of this country. The way here is for all to do alike.
- Ivan in O Pioneers! by Willa Cather**
---
* Many "independents" support John McCain, who is a Bush enabler, and isn't even kinda a real maverick anymore. The name change of the "Straight Talk Express" was a truth in advertising move. Bloomberg also is deemed an independent savior. This means he is willing to switch parties at will, if it is personally ideal for his political needs.
Some also might forget a key reason he got elected in the first place was that Rudy supported him after 9/11, though Mark Green (most recently, a loser vs. Andy Cuomo -- he of the light resume -- for N.Y. Attorney General) was a lousy enough candidate that it would have be close anyhow.
** A reference, including given the person the book is dedicated to, that might work on several levels here.