An excellent account of what’s going on From Professor Arthur Leonard of New York Law School:
For the second time in just a few weeks, a New York State trial judge cited the upstate appellate ruling mandating recognition of Canadian same-sex marriages, Martinez v. County of Monroe, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 909, in support of its decision in Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Services, No. 4078-07 (March 3, 2008), that the agency administering health benefits for state employees can recognize such marriages.
Albany County Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. McNamara rejected numerous arguments made by the Alliance Defense Fund in its challenge to the extension of health benefits to same-sex spouses of state employees.
McNamara explained that the Civil Service Law authorizes the president of the Civil Service Commission to set up a health insurance plan for state officers and employees. The law authorizes coverage for spouses and dependent children of state employees. In May 2007, the Department’s Employee Benefits Division issued a “revised policy memorandum” stating that it would recognize as spouses any party to a same sex marriage performed in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal.
Suing on behalf of a few taxpayers, Alliance Defense Fund argued that the memorandum violated various state policies, improperly sought to advance one of the governor’s political goals, and was inconsistent with a position that the Department had recently taken in another case, Funderburke v. New York State Department of Civil Service.
In the Funderburke case, a gay retired public school teacher sought to have benefits extended to his male spouse from a Canadian marriage, but the Uniondale Union Free School District refused. The teacher sued both the school district and the Civil Service Department. In opposing the demand for benefits, the Department joined in arguing that because of the 2006 Hernandez decision, same-sex marriages could not be recognized in New York State, regardless of where they were performed. Alliance argued that a doctrine called “judicial estoppel” should apply to prevent the Department from making a contrary argument in this case.
McNamara rejected this argument, writing, “this action is neither the same action as Funderburke nor does it arise from the judgment in Funderburke.” He also rejected the argument that under the doctrine of separation of powers, the administrators of the health benefits plan did not have authority to interpret the word “spouse” used in the law as different from the traditional definition or existing legislative or judicial pronouncements. In other words, the court rejected the contention that the law is invariably static and not subject to rethinking by administrators or courts. In this case, the rethinking mainly had to do with a change of administration. The Patakai Adminstration opposed recognition of same-sex marriages from elsewhere, while the Spitzer Administration has embraced such recognition, as the 2007 revised policy memorandum showed.
Justice McNamara cited Martinez v. County of Monroe, issued on February 1 by the Appellate Division for the 4th Department, in Rochester. “In the absence of a contrary holding in this Department,” wrote McNamara, “the ruling in Martinez is binding on this court.” In briefly discussing the Martinez case, McNamara specifically noted that the Martinez court had found the decision to deny spousal benefits to a married-in-Canada same-sex couple violated the state’s human rights law as sexual orientation discrimination.
Rejecting as well the argument about how the policy memo advances the governor’s political goals, McNamara wrote, “To the extent that the policy memorandum is consistent with a political objective of the governor, that objective, according to the court in Martinez, is consistent with the New York policy regarding recognition of foreign marriages.” And, as Justice McNamara observed, as long as the 4th Department’s decision stands and until it is rejected by another panel of the Appellate Division, it functions as a state-wide precedent. Monroe County announced its intention to appeal that ruling to the state’s highest court.
Another Marriage Recognition Victory in New York, from Leonard Link.
