The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday ordering that state’s legislature to offer gays the benefits of marriage, either via civil unions or same-sex marriage, may not lead to a flood of New Yorkers crossing the Hudson River, but it could have a profound effect on the New York state Legislature’s approach to gay unions.
“I think it does mean something for New York,” said Roberta Kaplan, the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner who argued in favor of same-sex marriage last May before the New York Court of Appeals in the joined cases known as Hernandez v. Robles, 86. “It’s not irrelevant that nearly every state that shares a border with New York — Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and now New Jersey — allows for in some measure, either by court ruling or legislative act, statewide recognition of same-sex families.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
