Nayack - Home of Barz. Not a bad place, but a $5 cover for a DJ who can’t even mix Kool-aid is unwarranted.
I personally think everyone should cool down. Lawlessness, no matter how worthy or just the cause, is still lawlessness. When an elected official in the executive branch of gov’t begins ignoring laws that they personally deem discriminatory, anarchy could ensue.
I never realized we in NYS had such an agreement with Canada. I’ll check the clock and see how long it takes before someone asks: “Does the Empire State have a similar agreement with any countries that allow polygamy?”
I haven’t read the opinion Spitzer issued, but I don’t think he’s referring specifically to any agreement with Canada. I think he’s talking about comity.
A quick review of U.S.-Canada treaties has revealed nothing obligating officials in one to observe the public acts of the other. I can’t find any NY/Canada treaties except a couple regarding Indian law.
By custom, states generally accept marriages performed in other nations (as part of the general principle of comity), but are certainly not obligated to grant legal status to marriages which would not be legal had they been performed on their territory.
I can’t find Spitzer’s statement either, but I can only assume that someone at 365gay was doing a little wishful thinking there.
That said, whenever he decides to run for President (and he will), he’s got my vote.
The opinion is at the bottom of this page, in pdf. He’s saying the out of jurisdiction marriages would be recognized under the common law principle of recognition, and cites cases where such marriages which were illegal in NY were recognized when performed out of state.