Or they just had the ceremony in Italy. It’s not a requirement that the solemnization take place in New York.
The general rule for recognition of foreign marriages is that, if a marriage is not valid in the place where it is celebrated, then it is not recognised as valid anywhere. But, if it is valid in the place of celebration, then it is recognised as valid everywhere. There can be statutory exceptions both ways, but that is the default position.
So, if a marriage celebrated in Italy complies with the essential requirements of Italian law for a valid marriage, New York state will recognise the couple concerned as married (even if the marriage wouldn’t have been valid if celebrated that way in New York - e.g. if New York law would have required the issue of a marriage licence, but Italian law did not). If it doesn’t, they won’t (even if the marriage would have been valid if celebrated that way in New York).
And of course the Harris-Burtka marriage didn’t comply with the essential requirements of Italian law, on account of the fact that the spouses were not of different sexes. Hence, not valid in Italy. Hence, not recognised as valid by New York State. If Harris and Burtka are recognised as legally married in New York state, then they contracted a valid marriage either in New York State or in some third jurisdiction which recognises same-sex marriages
That rule is for marriages conducted entirely in another jurisdiction. In Harris’ case, the license was issued in New York.
But the issuing of a licence is not the conducting of a marriage, and it’s not part of the conducting of a marriage. Whether recognised in New York or not, the Harris/Burtka marriage was solemnised entirely in Italy, and accordingly its recognition as valid in NY will depend on its validity under Italian law. You can’t get around the application of Italian law to an Italian wedding by getting a New York licence.
New York in fact only issues licences to people intending to be married in New York State; people intending to marry outside NY, even if they are residents of NY, do not require an NY marriage licence. And there would be an obvious jurisdictional issue with New York purporting to licence something being done in another jurisdiction. New York can no more licence a couple to marry in Italy than it can, say, licence a bank to accept deposits from the public in Italy. If you want to do these things it Italy, you need to comply with the requirements of Italian law, not New York law.
Plus, there’s a practical issue; NY could not enforce its law making it an offence to celebrate a marriage without a licence having been obtained, and it would have no way to compel celebrants or others to comply with NY requirements regarding signing and filing of the licence after the wedding had been solemnised. So the application of New York licencing procedures to marriage not celebrated in New York would be pretty pointless.
They are NY residents. A state can certainly exercise jurisdiction over the marriages of its own citizens.
Actually, the New York City Clerk’s Office puts on a lovely ceremonyin a beautiful location, at least since the 2009 renovation.
Friends of mine planned a large, religious wedding near the bride’s hometown in Michigan, but realized that their travel schedules wouldn’t allow them to apply for a Michigan marriage license sufficiently in advance of the wedding. So, the week before, they got offiically married at the Manhattan Marriage Bureau on their lunch hour, with just a couple of their New York friends attending. It was a short, solemn and happy ceremony in a beautiful room within a tasteful suite in a historic government building. Perhaps the best part was seeing all of the happy couples and their family and friends, in all manner of dress – from casual couples to traditional white bridal dresses and formalwear, to bright traditional costumes. The next week, they had their Michigan ceremony with a religious officiant and big reception.
Like my friends, I’m sure that Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka had a small civil ceremony in New York and their celebration in Italy. New York Marriage Lawprovides that the solemenizationof the marriage (that is the exchanging of “I dos” before a celebrant or other religious ceremony) must take place in New York.
I stand properly corrected.
I’m not throwing in the towel yet. The language must only “substantially” comply with the pre-printed text. If one reads it literally, a person may only be married by one who resides in New York State and it also must be in the year “nineteen” something.
This is what I was going to say. “Marriage” has always had multiple meanings—social, religious, and legal. They did the social part in Italy. It doesn’t matter that they couldn’t do the legal or religious parts there—actually, they could still have done the religious part if they held a ceremony with elements that they considered religious. No institution has a monopoly on these definitions.
But section 13 says that you only need a marriage licence if you intend “to be married in New York State”, and obviously section 17 (which penalises a celebrant who celebrates a marriage without a licence having been presented) can’t be enforced outside New York.
Really Not All That Bright suggests in post #25 that New York State can exercise jurisdiction over the marriage ceremonies of its residents, wherever celebrated. You could argue that that’s theoretically possible, but on the wording of the legislation it doesn’t appear that New York attempts to do so.
Besides, the “full faith and credit” clause effectively makes it impossible for New York to exercise jurisdiction over the marriages of New York residents marrying elsewhere in the US. Given that, even if it were theoretically possible for the State to attempt to regulate the marriages of New York residents held outside the US, it would seem to be pointless.
Yeah! How could he?!
runs away sobbing
I was married before my community in RI about a decade before I legally married in MA. Most people don’t say, “I was married at the Burbank City Clerk’s Office” or what have you. They say, “I was married on the beach (and not at all where the paper was signed and the fee was paid).”
Does New York jurisdiction extend to Italy?
I’m thinking you read it wrong:
“NPH married his long-time bf DB: In Italy over the Weekend!”
or
“NPH married; His LTBF, DB, in Italy over the Weekend!”
Not usually, but in this case the parties agreed to submit to New York jurisdiction for purposes of their marriage. New York couldn’t enforce its marriage laws outside its jurisdiction but nothing would stop them from simply recognizing a marriage performed outside of its jurisdiction under its own licensing scheme.
Ehhh…
Is this true? I understood marriage to have been a secular institution required by local government long before it became anything else…
nm; **Billdo **answered my Qs.
Nope, it predates anything that looks remotely like modern government. Marriage is a social construct. Neither church nor state create marriage, they recognise it in so far as it’s relevant to their concerns, and they invest it with additional signficance and to some extent they regulate it, or try to. But ultimately neither church nor state can depart too far from the social reality. If you and your current squeeze consider yourselve to be married, and your family, friends and community regard you as married and treat you as married then, really, church and state have to come into line with the social reality, or they diminish their own relevance.
In theory a state could do this. But nothing in the New York Code suggests that they do do this, and in practice its very unlikely that any state would wish to depart from the eminently sensible rule that the validity of marriage is determined by the lex loci celebrationis. It would lead to the anomalous situation that the couple concerned would be regarded as married in New York State, but nowhere else in the world, not even in other jurisdictions which recognise and celebrate same-sex marriage. It’s not clear why anyone would want that status, or why it would be considered a good thing to confer it on them.