Gay Spouses Due Benefits in the State, Court Finds

The state’s highest court on Thursday upheld policies giving some government benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married outside the state, but did not rule on whether gay marriage should be legal in New York, leaving that issue for the Legislature to decide.

Though the majority in the 4-to-3 decision focused its decision on the narrow question of benefits, the three judges in the minority went further and said the court should have upheld the policies because same-sex marriages legally performed in other states deserved to be recognized in New York.

One of the cases before the court, the Court of Appeals, involved the State Department of Civil Service, which in 2007 extended health insurance benefits to the partners of state and local workers who married in other states or countries. The other case involved a policy adopted in Westchester County in 2006 requiring county officials to recognize same-sex unions performed elsewhere.

Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr., writing for the majority, said, “The legislature intended to give the Department of Civil Service — guided of course by the collective bargaining process — complete discretion to determine the limits of dependent coverage.”

In the Westchester case, the plaintiffs claimed that an order by the county executive, Andrew J. Spano, had led to “the illegal disbursement of county funds.” That claim was rejected on technical grounds, because the plaintiffs did not offer an example of when taxpayer money was disbursed improperly.

“We find this lack of specificity fatal,” Judge Pigott wrote.

When it came to the broader issue of whether the state should legalize same-sex marriage, Judge Pigott wrote that the court hoped that “the Legislature will address this controversy.”

But Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, writing for the minority, said, “The orders under review should be affirmed on the ground that same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our state’s longstanding marriage recognition rule.”

Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, which worked on behalf of two same-sex couples involved in the cases decided on Thursday, said, “This victory ensures that important spousal health coverage that same-sex couples need to protect their families will continue.”

But Brian Raum, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group that represented the plaintiffs in the cases, said, “We are disappointed that the court avoided addressing the real issue in this case.”

“In New York, the only relationship recognized as marriage is the committed relationship between a man and a woman,” he added. “State and local officials should not attempt to use marriage laws from outside jurisdictions to place their political agendas ahead of the law.”

The Court of Appeals will probably weigh in on other cases involving same-sex marriage. The Alliance Defense Fund is also coordinating the legal challenge to an order issued last year by Gov. David A. Paterson, an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage, that requires state agencies to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The ruling on Thursday came as the State Senate moved closer to holding a vote on legalizing same-sex marriage. The Assembly has passed such a measure, but its prospects in the narrowly divided Senate are uncertain.

Advocates have been pressing the Senate to at least vote on the matter, forcing lawmakers to make their positions known and ensuring a passionate debate on the floor. Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, seized on the court’s urging the Legislature to act.

“The Court of Appeals was unusually explicit in its ruling today,” Mr. Van Capelle said. “We agree and eagerly anticipate a debate and vote on the marriage bill in the State Senate. Full recognition of the rights of gay couples is imperative.”