National impact from New York marriage law: experts

[garbon]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/idINIndia-57912120110625

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.

[Ideologue]

Oh, maybe not a decade, but eventually, relatively soon.

Kind of sucks.  I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.  Sure, there will be things I hate about society, lots of things, but those things will never change.  Was Fukuyama: right?

[Eddie Teach]

I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.  Sure, there will be things I hate about society, lots of things, but those things will never change.  Was Fukuyama: right?

Depends. Can civilization survive its own success?

[Razgovory]

Good for them.

[Martinus]

I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.

The second "I" is a key word here. I think our generation is the last to see GLBT issues as a political cause (because it will soon be resolved with only loons opposing gay equal rights etc.) and probably for our generation it will be it. But the next generations will come with something new - something our generation will probably find hard to stand behind (as was the case with the gay rights and the previous generations). Stuff like "primates' rights" for example or some deepening pro-animal legislation.

[citizen k]

[Ideologue]

I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.

The second "I" is a key word here. I think our generation is the last to see GLBT issues as a political cause (because it will soon be resolved with only loons opposing gay equal rights etc.) and probably for our generation it will be it. But the next generations will come with something new - something our generation will probably find hard to stand behind (as was the case with the gay rights and the previous generations). Stuff like "primates' rights" for example or some deepening pro-animal legislation.

Well, this is actually what I meant by the "those things will never change" part, at least not enough to be to my liking.

Primates rights may come, but I really suspect it'll be too late.  The time to deal to "rebalance" the primate population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is today (just kidding, but the Congolese piss me off), but no one else thinks it'd be a good idea to use Blackwater mercenaries to guard bonobo sanctuaries and execute people trying to use them for bushmeat.  Probably no one ever will.  Well, maybe Slargos, but for the wrong reasons.

And people won't give up meat-eating, as a general rule, until we invent Star Trek replicators or something, and even then people will likely kill for their own entertainment.  Hinduism and Buddhism failed to come close to eliminating it even within their own religions, and they promised punishment to credulous morons.  What does a secular morality have to offer?  "It's bad, don't do it!"  Yeah, right.

Capitalism will continue to survive and objectivist libertards will continue to be numerous and influential enough to keep necessary reform to a minimum, even while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.

I can still probably find some people to hate over the issue of genetic engineering, though, so there's that.  Of course, just like supporting gay rights, a bunch of other people who are not me will get to reap all the material rewards, and I receive the dubious prize of being morally correct.  Yay.

You know, maybe those libertards have the right idea.

[Martinus]

The thing is, any futurology like this is ultimately pointless, because we will never know. I bet if you asked people in the 1950s (which is not that long ago) if they think two guys will be able to marry in New York, they would have laughed at you and said "it will never happen".

By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know.

[Martinus]

Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. 

[Eddie Teach]

By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know.

Why do you want to see the Statue of Liberty buried in the sand? 

[Razgovory]

By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know.

People can already communicate with apes.

[Faeelin]

Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. 

Are you fat?

[Martinus]

Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. 

Are you fat?

Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why

[Faeelin]

Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why

What's your height/weight?

[Ideologue]

Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. 

Are you fat?

Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why

This is true.  There's a couple of dudes I know who are ridiculous small--despite being around my height, they can't weigh more than 140 pounds, and I'd suspect less.

I would admire their misplaced discipline, then I remember, "Oh, yeah, cocaine exists."