A New York appellate court has ruled that the state must recognize foreign same-sex "marriages." The How Appealing blog links to several articles reporting on the situation as well as the ruling in Martinez v. County of Monroe, No. 1562, CA 06-02591 (N.Y. App. Feb. 1, 2008). An excerpt from the opinion:
For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the “positive law” of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of “natural law” . . . Thus, if a marriage is valid in the place where it was entered, “it is to be recognized as such in the courts of this State, unless contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute” . . . Under that “marriage-recognition” rule, New York has recognized a marriage between an uncle and his niece “by the half blood” . . . , common-law marriages valid under the laws of other states . . . , a marriage valid under the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada of a man and a woman both under the age of 18 . . . , and a “proxy marriage” valid in the District of Columbia . . . , all of which would have been invalid if solemnized in New York. We conclude that plaintiff’s marriage does not fall within either of the two exceptions to the marriage-recognition rule. “[A]bsent any New York statute expressing clearly the Legislature’s intent to regulate within this State marriages of its domiciliaries solemnized abroad, there is no positive law in this jurisdiction” to prohibit recognition of a marriage that would have been invalid if solemnized in New York . . . The Legislature has not enacted legislation to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered into outside of New York, and we thus conclude that the positive law exception to the general rule of foreign marriage recognition is not applicable in this case. The natural law exception also is not applicable. That exception has generally been limited to marriages involving polygamy or incest or marriages “offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded generally with abhorrence” . . . , and that cannot be said here.
