May 30, 2008  |  By: JOEY DiGUGLIELMO  | COMMENTS     

New York Gov. David Paterson this week instructed state agencies to immediately change their policies and recognize gay couples wed in other jurisdictions.

The move came just hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing June 17 as the first date gays and lesbians could legally wed there. Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund took formal measures to delay the implementation of the new law.

Many of the state (but not federal) benefits of marriage would be available to New York gay couples that wed in other states or countries, the memo from the governor’s counsel says. Agencies have until the end of June to work out the logistics.

But gays in California aren’t home free yet. County clerks there have until June 18 to verify the signatures needed to qualify a proposed constitutional amendment banning the unions on November’s ballot.

Alliance Defense Fund said in its petition for rehearing filed late last week that enacting the unions in California now only to have them overturned if the ballot referendum passes in November would create a legal quagmire the state could avoid if it waits until after November to allow gays there to marry.

A new Field Poll released Wednesday found 51 percent of the 1,052 registered voters who were asked supported same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed.

Although it asks a different question, an earlier poll from the Los Angeles Times/KTLA seemed to conflict with those findings. That earlier poll found 54 percent of California voters backing a gay marriage ban and 35 percent opposed to it.

The Human Rights Campaign said anti-gay ripple effects stemming from the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling, which found that it is unlawful for the state to deny gays the right to wed, have been relatively mild and that defeating the proposed referendum if it makes the ballot is entirely doable.

“If anything, I would almost consider the response from across the country from opponents of equality a big shrug,” said Marty Rouse, HRC’s national field director.

“There is no large outcry from the opposition,” he said. “In most states, in big cities, in state legislatures, there have been a few hiccups but that’s all they are.”

Despite Alliance Defense Fund’s filing for delay of implementation, which was expected, Rouse said the general lack of significant opposition is a sign of “the slow, but growing acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships.”

Of November, he said, “the only reasons we will lose is if we’re complacent — victory’s in our grasp.”

Activists in New York praised Paterson’s decision.

"This is a milestone in the fight for fairness in New York," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Couples in New York who have never known true security for their families will be officially entitled to treatment by our state government that respects their rights."

Rev. Duane Motley, director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which has lobbied against the legalization of gay marriage, declined to comment on Paterson's directive.

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, wich was posted on the gay rights organization's web site.

Paterson spokesperson Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to ...