States Adding Same-Sex Marriage Bans Often Include Civil Unions
State legislators' support for constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage continues unabated after the November 2004 elections. Twenty-two states have taken at least one step toward enacting constitutional amendments since the election cycle, according to data compiled by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Recent Decisions Back Same-Sex Marriage Bans
Three recent decisions by state courts indicate the likely staying power of same-sex marriage bans enacted at the state level. Two of the decisions reviewed in this article confirm that bans do not violate state constitutions, and one decision suggests that opponents of state constitutional amendments will find it difficult to challenge the process.
<i>Hernandez v. Robles</i>
The recent decision of the New York County Supreme Court in <i>Hernandez v. Robles</i> is a significant step forward in the effort to establish marriage rights for same-sex couples in New York. Of the five same-sex marriage cases currently pending in the State, <i>Hernandez</i> is, thus far, the only decision favorable to the plaintiffs.
The Out-of-State Dissolution of Civil Unions
Vermont's civil union law went into effect on July 1, 2000. Since that time, more than 6000 civil unions have been performed there according to Vermont's Department of Health. According to the Vermont Guide to Civil Unions -- published on the official Web site of Vermont's Secretary of State -- family courts in Vermont have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the dissolution of civil unions. Indeed, the dissolution of civil unions follows the same procedures -- and is subject to the same substantive rights and obligations -- that are involved in the dissolution of marriage, including any residency requirements. For instance, a complaint to dissolve a civil union in Vermont may be brought if either party to the civil union has resided within the state for a period of 6 months or more, but dissolution cannot be granted unless one of the parties has resided in the state at least one year preceding the date of the final hearing.
Upcoming Events
SXSW Music and Media Conference and Festival 2005 CLE Program, sponsored by SXSW. In Austin, TX, March 18-19. Will cover music law year in review, live performance and touring issues, alternative digital deals, artist career co-ventures, structuring agreements in the music industry and legal ethics in the digital age. For further information: 512-467-7979 or www.sxsw.com. …
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
The Uncertainties of the 'Unopened' Easement
Although New York courts have long-recognized that "an easement created by grant may be extinguished by adverse possession" (<i>See Harlem Commonwealth Council, Inc. v. Thomas Memorial Wesleyan Methodist Church</i>, 10 A.D.3d 572 (1st Dep't 2004); <i>Spiegel v. Ferraro</i>, 73 N.Y.2d 622, 625 (1989); <i>Gerbig v. Zumpano</i>, 7 N.Y.2d 327 (1960)), a different rule has been applied to "unopened" easements -- <i>ie</i>, easements that have been created by grant but have remained unused. Generally, a possession will not be deemed adverse to an unopened easement or right of way until three conditions have been satisfied. These conditions are: 1) the need by the easement holder for the right of way has arisen; 2) a demand has been made by the easement holder that the right of way be opened; and 3) the servient tenant (property owner) has refused the demand. <i>Castle Associates v. Schwartz</i>, 63 A.D.2d 481 (2d Dep't 1978).
Index
Everything that's contained in this issue, in one easy list.
