Fear of lawsuits from New York gay marriage may be overblown

NEW YORK Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:40pm EDT

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Fear of a slew of litigation arising from a possible religious exemption to New York's proposed same-sex marriage law may be overstated, legal experts said.

The exemption, the main sticking point in negotiations on the measure before the New York state Senate, would allow religious officials and organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.

Critics of the legislation -- which remained one vote from passage on Wednesday -- have expressed concern that the exemption does not protect nonprofits groups affiliated with religious organizations, or individuals with religious objections. They also said that the bill does not mention municipal discrimination laws, which could lead to a wave of lawsuits.

"What is going to wind up happening is years of litigation on individual cases at all levels of government," Edward Mechmann, an attorney for the New York Catholic Archdiocese, said on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos echoed that concern. "We don't want to pass a bill and (then) there's a slew of litigation on a number of these exemptions," he said on Monday. "So, we're looking to tighten that up."

In Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia, all of which have passed gay-marriage legislation with religious exemptions, similar fears of lawsuits have not been borne out.

"There have been very few lawsuits, and the lawsuits that are filed usually have been resolved amicably," said William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School in Connecticut.

New York legislators have proposed expanding the exemption to protect any "individual or business with religious objections." This would mirror the exemption in Connecticut, where, religious-affiliated adoption centers may refuse to serve gay couples.

It is unclear whether New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has indicated his willingness to include broader protections, will agree to that language.

"This is marriage as defined by government, not by a religion; the law has to protect that separation," Cuomo told reporters on Friday.

Regardless of the scope of the exemption, the issue serves as a proxy for "hardliners" on both sides of the issue, said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on religious liberty.

"When most of the people on the religious side say we want exemptions, it means we want no same-sex marriage," he said. "On the other side, when they say they want marriage, they don't want exemptions for anyone."

Still, Laycock said he believes the exemption is useful. "There won't be a whole lot of cases, but think about those cases -- they will create a martyr, generate publicity and inflame feelings," he said. "Religious exemptions are needed to defuse this and allow both sides to live their own values."

(Editing by Jesse Wegman, Barbara Goldberg and Greg McCune)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (20)
klgrube wrote:
This fear isn’t overblown at all! the first church or organization that refused to conduct a gay “marriage” will be sued and these so-called “protections” will be found to be unconstitutional. These “protections” are meaningless. Don’t buy the lie. Vote NO on this idiotic bill and let the voters make this choice for themselves.

Jun 22, 2011 1:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wrpa wrote:
Simple….if an agency of the Catholic church, such as an adoption agency, accepts federal funds, it must obey the anti discrimination laws which accompany that money, just like other agencies which receive the funds. But they don’t have to accept federal funds; they can sell some of the trillions in treasures stuffed into the Vatican.Since the Vatican is an autonomous state, you can look at federal funds going to Catholic adoption agencies as ‘foreign aid”.

Jun 22, 2011 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GabrielHaze wrote:
To anyone reading this article, religious or otherwise, churches and religious organizations always have and always will have protection from being sued for discrimination.

All of this is just a huge distraction to make the religious conservatives scared into voting against this legislation for fear of legal repercussions. To this day churches refuse to marry interracial couples base on race, based on living arrangements and even if the female had children out of wedlock.

There is a huge difference between legally being allowed to get a license from the state that says you are “married” versus forcing a private institution to perform ceremonies. Open your eyes.

Jun 22, 2011 2:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.