New York bad news

This sort of crap is why we must sign power of attorney, etc., papers to protect our rights as a couple -- even though we are registered as domestic partners and are making a public commitment to one another.


Marriage lite
By THE JOURNAL NEWSTHE JOURNAL NEWS(Original Publication: October 15, 2005)
For anyone still trying to understand all the fuss about gay marriage, there's no need to look to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger just vetoed legislation allowing same-sex marriage, or to Connecticut, which recently became the first state to enact civil unions for gays without a court order. Our New York Court of Appeals offers fresh evidence why the status quo barring such unions here means real hardship to gay couples.
New York's highest court ruled this week that a Vermont man cannot sue a Manhattan hospital for malpractice in the death of his longtime partner, saying it could not provide a "judicial imprimatur" for same-sex marriages. The 3-2 ruling overturned a Long Island judge who allowed John Langan to sue St. Vincent's Hospital for malpractice in the death of Neil Conrad Spicehandler, his partner for 15 years. Langan claimed that the couple's 2000 civil union in Vermont gave him standing, or legal authority, to sue as a spouse — the same way a husband can sue to recover for a harm done to his wife.
Not so fast, said the Court of Appeals, in an opinion that may bode ill for pending lawsuits challenging the state's ban on same-sex unions.
"Any contrary decision, no matter how circumscribed, will be taken as judicial imprimatur of same-sex marriages and would constitute a usurpation of powers expressly reserved by our Constitution to the Legislature," the court ruled. In other words, a gay civil union isn't the same as a marriage, in terms of the rights conferred, and the court won't "read in" a marriage, so to speak, until our Legislature says there's one.
Likewise, the ruling does not bode well for same-sex New York couples who have legally married elsewhere — e.g., in Massachusetts, Canada or Belgium. Gay rights advocates hoped the ruling might lead to New York recognition of those marriages. Instead, those unions remain on dubious ground in New York. No state that so routinely champions fairness, equal protection and liberty can permit such unwarranted bias to endure — not without sanctioning a hypocrisy.
In this case, Spicehandler and Langan shared what the court described as a "close, loving, committed, monogamous relationship as a family unit in a manner indistinguishable from any traditional marital relationship."
But married they weren't; their civil union was hardly enough. Spicehandler died at the hospital after being struck by a car in Manhattan. Langan alleged medical mistakes led to his partner's death from an embolism.
"This court is being asked to create a relationship never intended by the state of Vermont," which recognized civil unions after lawsuits, the court said.
Adam Aronson, attorney for Langan, said he was confident that "this is not the final word."
Our Legislature, with an eye toward ending a wrong, must see that it is not.