Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...NYS insurers ordered to recognize same-sex marriages
11.24.2008 5:30pm EST
(New York City) The New York State overseerer of insurance companies has told companies they must treat legally married same-sex couples the same as they treat opposite-sex married pairs.
Although state law does not permit gay marriage within New York State, a Rochester court ruled that valid out-of-state marriages of lesbian and gay couples must be recognized. The state’s highest court upheld the ruling.In addition, Gov. David Paterson in June issued a directive instructing state agencies governing insurance and health care - to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages performed in areas where they are legal.
Nevertheless, some private insurers have declined to recognize same-sex marriages.
In his directive to insurance companies operating in the state, Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo said legally married same-sex couples cannot be treated differently than other married couples.
“Insurance is an essential part of our planning for daily life,” Dinallo’s directive said.
“We expect insurance companies to provide the same rights and benefits to all legally married couples, regardless of the sex of the spouses … As Governor David Paterson has explained, this is consistent with the position the State historically has taken with respect to marriages conducted in jurisdictions outside of the State of New York.”
Large numbers of New York gay and lesbian couples have gone to Canada, Massachusetts and Connecticut where same-sex marriage is legal to tie the knot. LGBT rights groups are hopeful the incoming legislature will pass marriage equality legislation in the Empire State. Gov. Paterson has said he would sign the bill if it is passed.
In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.
A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year but Republicans who then controlled the Senate refused to consider the legislation.
November’s election saw 40 years of GOP rule in the Senate come to an end. The marriage equality legislation likely will be reintroduced in 2009.
Yes, but to take the benefits from the insurance company it would have to be claimed as earned income.
This order alone does not put us on a level playing field.
What about people married in other countries?? Good move, somebody force it! Enough is enough… Equality is Equality. Bigots can keep their Victorian morals to themselves and let the rest of us get on with repairing the ills they have caused us.
L’orion,
I intend to start by demanding that my congressional senators (each US state has 2 senators from its own state to Congress and I am not sure how reps Maryland has there) for and house reps work now toward a repeal of the Federal DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act) and to be ready to resist all attempts to preserve DOMA
for anyone that hasnt looked at or joined “join the impact.com” i would suggest you do so it is a grassroots movement by US to get something done in this country
of course the same goverment wants our tax money but yet rights for get it
The flip side of this is that organizations that offered benefits to same-sex non-married couples can now deny them benefits under the argument that since they can get married (elsewhere), benefits will only be offered to married couples (including same-sex). This has happened to me and my partner. He was informed that he can go to Canada, Connecticut, or Massachusetts and get married, but because of that, his partner (me) will no longer be considered for benefits. And so we’re off to Connecticut to get married, which will thus transfer to NY.
David, you are right. Unmarried couples could be denied benefits. That’s OK. Our fight is for marriage equality.
The idea that we could be included under an insurance or company benefits that recognizes ‘couples’ rather than marriage is simply an attempt (regardless of the intent) to set up a ’separate but equal’ classification.
Separate but equal never has or will work. If we are fighting for marriage equality we must fight until we have it. Unfortunately, in situations like this, there are folks who will have to begin their own fight.
I can’t say that unmarried couples shouldn’t have benefits . . . only that the fight for marriage equality should not be encumbered by unmarried couples or their classification. Unmarried couples have to make their own case. For gay people to make that case for them only dilutes our own challenges and muddies the waters for those who have the power to change the law.
Neil