New York Recognition of a Legal Status for Same-Sex Couples: A Rapidly Developing Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In New York State at the beginning of 2010, same-sex couples cannot get married but can be married. The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, construed the state’s marriage law in 2006 to prohibit state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but said nothing in that decision about whether same-sex couples married outside the state would be considered married when they were in the state. In February 2008, an intermediate appeals court in Rochester ruled that New York’s marriage recognition law supported extending comity to a same-sex marriage performed in Canada, and several other appellate courts have reached similar conclusions, but the Court of Appeals avoided deciding the issue in a 2009 case, instead resolving the questions presented on narrower grounds of standing and statutory construction. Although the State Assembly has twice approved a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in the state, it was defeated in the State Senate shortly after the Court of Appeals ruling. This article provides the history of this issue in New York.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".