Legal Questions

Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.

New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 - unless that state’s Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling same-sex gay marriage. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.

Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada or one of the other nations where same-sex marriage is legal.

The move by Paterson’s administration does not legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature, which failed to pass a proposed measure last year.

The memo, one of the strongest steps the state can take short of action by the Legislature, cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a New York Appellate Division court in a case involving a woman wed in Canada who was denied benefits by her partner’s employer.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature “may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” the ruling said. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

In a video shown Saturday at the Empire State Pride Agenda’s spring dinner, the governor said he directed the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality right here in our state.”

“We’re aware that our advocacy is incomplete and we will keep trying until people who love each other and want to get married, regardless of who they are, have that opportunity,” Paterson said in the video, which was posted on the gay rights organization’s Web site.

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. It states that agencies must change policies and regulations to make sure “spouse,” “husband” and “wife” are clearly understood to include gay couples.

The memo says failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, it warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, first reported by The New York Times.

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Paterson, his running mate for lieutenant governor, campaigned in 2006 on a platform that included bringing equal rights to gays. Spitzer, however, said the state constitution didn’t sanction gay marriage.

Last year, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York was approved by the Democrat-led Assembly, but the Republican-led Senate hasn’t taken it up.

In California, a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the state Supreme Court to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.

Justices have until June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent Wednesday by e-mail to the state’s 58 county clerks.

The guidelines from Janet McKee, chief of California’s office of vital records, contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for “Party A” and “Party B” instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.

“Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California,” the directive reads.