Only three weeks ago, Governor Paterson’s liberal notion of recognizing same-sex marriages in the New York State Tax Law was removed from the legislative budget bills (S.6610/A.9710) for lack of support. The issue was a non-starter then.  So what has Governor Paterson done now in an attempt to jumpstart budget negotiations that have been cold and stiff for months now?

He has released a new budget proposal that includes the same controversial social policy. New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (NYCF) opposed the provision when it was previously introduced and continues to oppose it now. 

A provision in the Governor’s budget proposal (Part QQ – Extend Married Tax Filing Provisions to Same Sex Couples) would recognize same-sex partners with marriage licenses from other jurisdictions as married couples for purposes of the Empire State’s Tax Law. This provision would allow such partners to file their state income tax returns as married couples, despite the fact that they cannot file their federal returns in the same manner.

NYCF’s Executive Director, Rev. Jason J. McGuire, made the following comments: “If the Governor was serious about negotiating with the Legislature on a fiscal plan, don’t you think he would send a bill that could be seriously considered?  The people of New York have waited long enough for a completed budget. The inclusion of this controversial language only makes the chances of a budget agreement even more remote than they already are. Worse yet, the Governor’s proposal is not even relevant to the budgetary process. Mr. Governor, please present a real plan that brings this elongated budget process to a close—not smoke and mirrors.”

McGuire added, ”If Governor Paterson or certain legislators feel strongly about recognizing same-sex partners in this way, then the proposal should be presented as a stand-alone bill and allowed to rise or fall on its own merits. The State Legislature is right in rejecting the Governor’s new budgetary proposal, given that it includes this ill-advised provision as well as other controversial and unnecessary policy measures.”