National impact from New York marriage law: experts

NEW YORK Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:53pm EDT

A rainbow flag symbolizing gay pride hangs from the awning of a store in New York June 22, 2011. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

A rainbow flag symbolizing gay pride hangs from the awning of a store in New York June 22, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When New York became the sixth and by far the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage, following a grueling overtime session in the state Legislature on Friday, it immediately transformed the national debate over the issue, legal experts said.

With a population over 19 million -- more than the combined population of the five states that currently allow gay marriage, plus the District of Columbia, where it is also legal -- New York is poised to provide the most complete picture yet of the legal, social and economic consequences of gay marriage.

"I think that having same-sex marriage in New York will have tremendous moral and political force for the rest of the country -- in part because New York is a large state, and in part because it hasn't come easily," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School.

The New York Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation twice before, in 2007 and 2009, but in both cases it stalled in the state Senate, as it nearly did again this week. The bill passed late on Friday after legislators agreed on language allowing religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.

The new law's impact can be measured in part by the numbers at play: New York is home to more than 42,000 same-sex couples, according to an analysis of U.S. census data conducted by the Williams Institute. This means, among other things, that the number of same-sex couples living in states allowing same-sex marriage has more than doubled overnight.

REAL-WORLD DATA

If a significant portion of those couples choose to marry, it could provide a wealth of new information about the practical economic effects of such legislation, from employment and retirement benefits to divorce rates and wedding and tourism industries, said New York University Law School professor Arthur Leonard.

Parties on both sides of the issue frequently invoke the hypothetical economic impact of same-sex marriage, Leonard pointed out, so the influx of real-world data from New York could go a long way toward changing those hypotheticals into concrete facts.

"It becomes less of an experiment the more information we have," he added.

The ripple effect of the new law is likely to provide more than just information, said Goldberg. New York's mobile population means that the effects of the law will reach literally into other states.

"New Yorkers tend to move about the country quite a lot," Goldberg said. "High numbers of same-sex couples likely to marry here will increase pressure on other states to treat those couples fairly."

Currently, 39 states have laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, according to statistics from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

NEW YORK UNIQUE

For states considering how to handle calls for same-sex marriage, Massachusetts -- the first state to legalize it, in 2004 -- has generally served as the reference point, Leonard said. But he noted that New York was different from Massachusetts for two primary reasons.

First, it has more than three times as many people. Second, New York instituted same-sex marriage through legislation, complete with religious exemptions. Massachusetts, on the other hand, established the right to same-sex marriage in a court ruling.

The significance of that difference cuts both ways, said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School who studies the constitutional and social consequences of same-sex marriage in the United States.

When legislation fails to pass, it can serve as evidence of a minority group's political weakness or of widespread prejudice against it, Dorf said. Both are factors courts use under an equal-protection analysis to determine whether to intervene and protect minority rights. The New York legislation's success, in contrast, could lead judges in other states to say, "'We don't need to intervene, let the political process work this through,'" Dorf said.

But because courts are also wary to make rulings that are perceived to be too far outside the mainstream, the New York law may begin to tip that balance.

"To the extent that the anti-same-sex marriage argument has been that this is a radical change and incompatible with the country's social mores, the fact that the country's third most populous state has done so shows that it may not be," Dorf said.

Regardless of the immediate impact of the law, Dorf said, politics and public opinion on the issue "are in the course of rapid change."

"It seems inevitable that we'll have same-sex marriage in most of the states within a decade," he said.

(Reporting by Jessica Dye; Editing by Jesse Wegman)

FILED UNDER:
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 (4)
hardcache wrote:
Better 40 years late than never. I cannot believe they argued about adding language to protect the already protected religious freedom. It would be like passing ERA or protecting the rights of gays. What a satirical argument!

Jun 25, 2011 1:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wrpa wrote:
My deep respect to the 4 brave GOP Senators who took seriously their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution!

Jun 25, 2011 11:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wbeeman wrote:
This event has taught us several important things.
First, we can never expect a majority population to protect minority rights. The sour commentators who called for a “referendum” on this issue only do so because they want to insure that the rights of gay people be curtailed. Human rights are not up for election in the United States.
Second, a campaign like this can only succeed when there is a huge amount of money and serious political muscle and organization behind it. Factionalization and lack of discipline doomed this effort in its earlier iterations in New York. Having the chief executive behind it and a serious political machine with powerful financing was the driver. The opponents of Proposition 8 in California learned this to their sorrow. They never contacted the minority communities in urban areas, were underfunded and badly organized. Now they must resort to the courts to do the right thing. If this is going to go forward in other states there must be at least as serious an effort launched. Amateur hour is a loser.

Jun 26, 2011 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.