- NY Birth Certificates to Name Both Same-sex Parents
NEW YORK— The New York State Health Department has agreed to allow same-sex married couples to list both parents names on the birth certificates of children born during the marriage.
The directive, which conforms with Gov. David Paterson's state-wide order to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, means that married same-sex couples are treated equally to opposite-sex married couples, at least in regard to the birth of children during the marriage.
The change does not currently apply to children born in New York City, which maintains its own registry and which is considering revising its own policies and forms.
More …
- NJ Commission Recomends Marriage Equality
TRENTON—The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission released its final report on December 17, 2008, with a unanimous finding that the State's civil union law fails to meet the Supreme Court's requirement that same-sex couples be afforded treatment equal to that of married couples, and recommending that the Legislature quickly pass a marriage equality law.
We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission,
unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the
Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public
meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written
submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the
separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages
unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases,
the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of
same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of
employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for
civil union couples.
The full report can be downloaded here.
- CT Becomes Third State With Full Marriage Equality
HARTFORD—The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry. In the 4-3 ruling, the Court concluded that civil unions does not provide true equality and its imposition imposes a "cognizable harm" on same-sex couples.
The state becomes the third to recognize full marriage equality, after Massachusetts and California. Like California, the Court found that, under the Connecticut Constitution, sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class, thereby holding that laws concerning sexual orientation must withstand a heightened level of scrutiny to be found constitutional. The majority held that the marriage laws did not pass that level of scrutiny.
The Court's decision is found here.
- Expecting the Unexpected
I have been reminded several times in recent months that life is full of unexpected events. First, a client of mine very nearly died during a routine medical procedure. Second, a freak accident resulted in my becoming (temporarily) physically incapacitated. And third, I have witnessed at close range the rapid descent of a parent into irreversible mental incompetence. It reminded me that we are all vulnerable to these unexpected events that can leave us helpless and dependent on others, such as our spouse, our family members, or our friends.
Although we cannot predict when these unexpected events will fall on us, we can take important — and relatively easy — steps to avoid the unintended consequences of these events.
In March 2005, the public became aware of the dramatic struggle involving the life — and death — of Terri Schiavo. Terry was a young woman whose heart unexpectedly stopped, resulting in extensive brain damage that left her in a persistent vegetative state. For over 5 years, Terri's husband, Michael and her parents waged a battle in the courts, in the legislature, and in the press over the question of who had the right to determine Terri's wishes regarding her medical care. Ultimately, Terri's husband prevailed, as legally he should have, the feeding tube that maintained her was withdrawn, and Terri died on March 31, 2005. Regardless of your personal feelings about Terri's situation, it is important to understand the underlying reasons this particular case played out in such a contentious manner.
Like many adults in the U.S., Terri left no written indication of her wishes regarding her medical care. As a result, the various family members fought with each other for the right to impose their interpretation of Terri's wishes. Sadly, Terri's case would long ago have been resolved had she executed a set of advanced directives — specifically, a living will and/or a medical proxy designation.
If you do not have any form of advance directive, you are not alone. By some estimates, over 70% of Americans have not executed a living will, medical proxy or financial power of attorney. Without these documents, you are relying on others — your family, your spouse — to make important decisions about your health, welfare, and even about your right to live or die. When you rely on others to make these decisions for you, their decision may not be that which you would have made yourself. When there is disagreement by family members, as in Terri's case, your failure to choose may result in a lengthy, expensive legal battle that destroys family unity.
New Jersey passed the Advance Directives for Health Care Act in 1991. The Act allows competent adults to plan ahead for health care decisions by executing a living will and medical proxy directive. It also provides direction to courts when a decision must be made on behalf of someone who, like Terri, has not left a living will. The Act also provides that, when a patient has not named a particular person as their surrogate, the court will choose an appropriate individual. Normally, the court will choose the patient's next of kin, with preference being given to the patient's spouse, if any. Once a surrogate has determined the patient's wishes, the decision is not subject to judicial review.
In 2004, the Domestic Partnership Act granted registered domestic partners the right to make medical and legal decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner and in 2006, the civil union law granted civil union spouses the same right to make medical decisions as a married spouse. However, these rights are limited to registered domestic partners or civil union spouses; if you and your partner are simply living together, you have no legal right to make these decisions in the absence of a written directive.
For same-sex couples, there are two important lessons to be learned. First, if you are not in a registered domestic partnership or in a valid civil union, you must have a living will and medical proxy in writing naming your partner (or whomever you choose) as your agent. Second, you should have a written directive even if you are in a civil union or domestic partnership because your legal rights can only be guaranteed in states that, like New Jersey, recognize and respect your relationship.
- NY Court Upholds Marriage Recognition Order
New York, NY—A New York judge ruled Tuesday that Governor David Paterson (D) did not act illegally when he issued a directive ordering state agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
To recognize same-sex marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions is consistent with New York's common law, statutory law, and constitutional separation of powers, said the ruling by Justice Lucy Billings in Bronx Supreme Court.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, representing a group of Republican lawmakers, went to court accusing Paterson of overstepping his authority.
The governor has no authority to issue directives which conflict with New York's public policy. His actions are an assault on the democratic process, ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum argued in court. The future of marriage should be decided by the legislature, not executives who take matters into their own hands.
NYS attorney's representing Paterson argued that the governor was within his constitutional rights to issue directives to state agencies over which he has legal authority.
Paterson issued his directive in May after a midlevel appeals court ruled that a same-sex couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York State.
Neither the ruling nor Paterson's directive allowed for same-sex couples to marry in New York. Both were limited to marriages performed only in California and Massachusetts and in countries which have legalized same-sex marriage.
In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have an automatic constitutional right to marry in the state. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.
Last year, the Democratically-controlled New York
