|
See Text
A07732 Summary:BILL NO A07732
SAME AS Same as S 4401, S51101, S66003 / A40003
SPONSOR O'Donnell (MS)
COSPNSR Gottfried, Glick, Titone, Kellner, Silver, Bing, Rosenthal, Jeffries,
Dinowitz, John, Kavanagh, DenDekker, Schimel, Hevesi, Hoyt, Sayward,
Benedetto
MLTSPNSR Alessi, Aubry, Boyland, Brennan, Brodsky, Cahill, Cook, Duprey,
Englebright, Farrell, Fields, Gianaris, Jaffee, Lancman, Latimer,
Lavine, Lentol, Lifton, Lopez V, Lupardo, McEneny, Millman, Nolan,
Ortiz, Paulin, Peralta, Pretlow, Rivera J, Rivera N, Sweeney, Thiele,
Towns, Weisenberg, Wright, Zebrowski
Add S10-a, amd SS13 & 11, Dom Rel L
Relates to individuals ability to marry.
A07732 Actions:BILL NO A07732
04/22/2009 referred to judiciary
04/28/2009 reported
04/30/2009 advanced to third reading cal.499
05/12/2009 passed assembly
05/12/2009 delivered to senate
05/12/2009 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
01/06/2010 DIED IN SENATE
01/06/2010 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
01/06/2010 ordered to third reading cal.515
A07732 Votes:BILL: A07732 DATE: 05/12/2009 MOTION: YEA/NAY: 089/052
Abbate NO Cahill Y Errigo NO Hyer-Sp Y Mayerso Y Quinn NO Stirpe Y
Alessi Y Calhoun NO Espaill Y Jacobs Y McDonou NO Rabbitt NO Sweeney Y
Alfano NO Camara ER Farrell Y Jaffee Y McEneny Y Raia NO Tedisco NO
Amedore NO Canestr Y Fields Y Jeffrie Y McKevit NO Ramos Y Thiele Y
Arroyo Y Carrozz Y Finch NO John Y Meng ER Reilich NO Titone Y
Aubry Y Castro NO Fitzpat NO Jordan NO Miller Y Reilly Y Titus Y
Bacalle NO Christe NO Gabrysz NO Kavanag Y Millman Y Rive J Y Tobacco NO
Ball NO Clark NO Galef Y Kellner Y Molinar ER Rive N Y Towns Y
Barclay NO Colton NO Gantt ER Kolb NO Morelle Y Rive PM Y Townsen NO
Barra NO Conte NO Gianari Y Koon Y Nolan Y Robinso NO Walker NO
Barron NO Cook Y Giglio NO Lancman Y Oaks NO Rosenth Y Weinste Y
Benedet Y Corwin NO Glick Y Latimer Y O'Donne Y Russell Y Weisenb Y
Benjami NO Crouch NO Gordon Y Lavine Y O'Mara NO Saladin NO Weprin Y
Bing Y Cusick Y Gottfri Y Lentol Y Ortiz Y Sayward Y Wright Y
Boyland Y Cymbrow NO Gunther Y Lifton Y Parment Y Scarbor Y Zebrows Y
Boyle NO DelMont NO Hawley NO Lope PD NO Paulin Y Schimel Y Mr Spkr Y
Bradley Y DenDekk Y Hayes NO Lope VJ Y Peoples ER Schimmi NO
Brennan Y Destito Y Heastie ER Lupardo Y Peralta Y Schroed Y
Brodsky Y Dinowit Y Hevesi Y Magee NO Perry NO Scozzaf Y
Brook-K Y Duprey Y Hikind NO Magnare Y Pheffer Y Seminer NO
Burling NO Eddingt Y Hooper NO Maisel Y Powell Y Skartad Y
Butler NO Englebr Y Hoyt Y Markey ER Pretlow Y Spano Y
A07732 Memo:BILL NUMBER:A7732
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the domestic relations law, in relation
to the ability to marry
PURPOSE:
This bill provides same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into
civil marriages as opposite-sex couples. The bill also provides that no
member of the clergy may be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill sets forth legislative intent.
Section 2 of the bill adds a new Section 10-a to the Domestic Relations
Law (DRL) providing that: (1) a marriage that is otherwise valid shall
be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the
same or different sex; (2) no government treatment or legal status,
effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating
to marriage shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or
having been of the same sex rather than a different sex; and (3) all
relevant gender-specific language set forth in' or referenced by New
York law shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner.
Section 3 of the bill amends DRL S 13 to provide that no application for
a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of
the same, or a different, sex.
Section 4 of the bill amends DRL S 11(1) to make clear that no member of
the clergy acting in such capacity may be required to perform any
marriage.
Section 5 of the bill sets forth the effective date.
EXISTING LAW:
Although the Domestic Relations Law contains no specific prohibition
against, or allowance for, marriages between individuals of the same
sex, the New York Court of Appeals has held that New York statutory law
limits marriage within New York State to opposite-sex couples. See
Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338 (2005).
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:
The "freedom to marry" is, in the words of the United States Supreme
Court, "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free [people]."{1} In New York, however, certain
couples who seek to exercise this freedom, and partake of its rights and
responsibilities by mutual consent, may not do so solely because they
are of the same sex. The bar against same-sex marriages exists regard-
less of how long the individuals have lived together, or whether they
are raising children through legally recognized joint custody arrange-
ments. This bill removes the barriers in New York law that deprive indi-
viduals of the equal right to marry the person of their choice, by
granting the same legal recognition to all civil marriages regardless of
whether those who enter into them are of the same, or of a different,
sex.
Partners unable to enter into a civil marriage - and their children -
lack basic legal protections taken for granted by married couples. In
such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital
visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension bene-
fits and testimonial privileges, married couples receive important safe-
guards against the loss or injury of a spouse, and crucial assurances
against legal intrusion into their marital privacy. As important, unions
lacking the State's recognition are denoted, by force of law, as somehow
not equal to other comparable relationships. Civil marriage is the means
by which the State defines a couple's place in society. Those who are
excluded from its rubric are told by the institutions of the State, in
essence; that their solemn commitment to one another has no legal
weight.
Just as the right to marry confers important benefits on individuals,
the institution of marriage produces incalculable benefits for society,
by fostering stable familial relationships. Same-sex couples who wish to
marry are not simply looking to obtain additional rights, they are seek-
ing out substantial responsibilities as well: to undertake significant
and binding obligations to one another, and to lives of "shared intimacy
and mutual financial and emotional support."{2} Granting legal recogni-
tion to these relationships can only strengthen New York's families, by
extending the ability to participate in this crucial social institution
to all New Yorkers.
The history of this country for more than two centuries has been the
story of once excluded individuals and groups gaining gradual access to
equal rights under law. New York State, in particular, has played a
proud and honorable part in that history, from hosting the foundational
women's rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848, to breaking base-
ball's color barrier, to witnessing the seminal event of the modem gay
rights movement in New York City four decades ago. New York legislators
and other political leaders, of both parties and of all viewpoints, have
had an important role in this process, and in the gradual extension of
equal treatment to gays and lesbians in particular. In 1983, Governor
Mario Cuomo first banned discrimination in state employment by Executive
Order. In 2002, Governor Pataki extended the same principle to the
private sector by signing into law the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimi-
nation Act. That year, the State gave its first legal recognition to
same-sex relationships when the Legislature unanimously passed - and the
Governor signed - a bill extending workers' compensation benefits to all
those who lost a partner on 9/11. Yet the institution of marriage
remains closed to loving same-sex couples who seek only to be able to
show their mutual commitment as other individuals do. Passage of this
bill would remedy that flaw, and represent yet another important and
historic step in the process by which all citizens of New York State are
granted full and equal rights.
Individuals on both sides of the questions raised by this bill hold
deep-seated views that arise from a host of ethical and religious
considerations. To ensure that the bill does not improperly intrude into
matters of conscience or religious belief, the bill affirms that no
member of the clergy can be compelled to solemnize any marriage. In
short, this bill grants equal access to the government-created legal
institution of civil marriage, while leaving the religious institution
of marriage to its own separate, and fully autonomous, sphere.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
The bill will require additional state expenditures for spousal benefits
for those partners of state employees who are not eligible for such
benefits under current law, and who are married under this legislation.
At the same time, however, allowing same-sex marriage would have numer-
ous positive fiscal impacts. A 2007 report by the New York City Comp-
troller detailed numerous sources of added revenue that would result
from enacting marriage equality in New York State, including tax revenue
from additional weddings, higher intake of marital licensing fees and
reduction of means-tested benefit payments as a result of aggregated
marital income. Moreover, any negative budgetary impact from added bene-
fit payments will be limited, as many same-sex couples already enjoy
such benefits through a variety of administrative schemes, or as a
result of out-of-state marriages.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This bill takes effect immediately.
{1} Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. (1967).
{2} Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y. 3d 338 (2005) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting).
|
