I'm late on this, but I spend so much time giving the Fourth Department a hard time, that I would be remiss if I did not give credit where credit is due. In a unanimous decision, the Fourth Department tossed out a lawsuit brought by a religious lobbying group seeking to nullify New York's recently enacted gay marriage law on extremely technical grounds.
First, however: I call BS on the plaintiff, "New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms." Specifically, on that choice of a name. Guys and Gals of NYCF: you are a religious group advocating a very narrow agenda. Embrace it. For crying out loud, your mission statement (here) says, "As a Christian Ministry, NYCF exists to influence legislation and legislators for the Lord Jesus Christ." Cut the America The Beautiful crap. Scrap the Eagle and Flag logo. At most, you unequivocally like one amendment in the Bill of Rights.*1 I mean, when you say this:
We believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. If God says something is right, then it is right; and if God says something is wrong, then it is wrong. This includes marriage as a union of a man and a woman. It also includes a basic understanding of the 10 Commandments as our basis for moral convictions.
. . . your agenda, by definition, has nothing to do with the Constitution. Some less misleading re-branding is in order.
Anyway, on to the decision.*2 Last year, New York's legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act, permitting same-sex couples to get married in New York. NYCF filed a lawsuit in Livingston County, and asked the County Court judge assigned to the case to declare that the New York Senate violated the Open Meetings Law in enacting MEA "and that marriages performed thereunder are not valid." What is the Open Meetings Law (OML)? Glad you asked. Under the OML, "every meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public," with certain exceptions. As explained by the Court, the "purpose of the [OML] is to prevent public bodies from debating and deciding in private matters that they are required to debate and decide in public, i.e. deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy."
Wait, you might be thinking; did the Senate pass the MEA in a closed session? No. No they did not. So where did NYCF find its violation of the open meetings law? Well, stay with me.
At the time MEA was passed, the Republicans had the majority of the members in the Senate (32 members out of 62). Remember how a meeting of a "public body" must be open to the public? The statute defines "public body" as "any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business [...]." Ergo, "Inasmuch as the Republican Conference was the majority conference of the State Senate . . . a meeting of that conference constituted a quorum of the State Senate."
So, if all the Republicans in the Senate got together at once, the meeting would have to be open to the public, right? Well, no. The statute carves out an exception to the open meetings law for "the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses . . . who are members or adherents of the same political party."
Right. So, what was NYCF's problem again? Oh yeah. NYCF claimed that the MEA was enacted in violation of the open meetings law because all of the Senate Republicans met with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a registered Independent), and later all of the Senate Republicans met with Governor Andrew Cuomo (a registered Communist*3). Because not all attendees at those meetings were of the same political party--Cuomo and Bloomberg, respectively, were not Republicans--and since the MEA was discussed at those meetings, the exception to the open meetings law for purely political party-based meetings did not apply. The meetings should have been open to the public, and therefore all of the gay married couples in New York should be de-certified.
Only, not so fast.*4 The OML exception for purely political committee meetings applies "without regard to . . . whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations."*5 NYCF argued in its lawsuit that "the definition of 'guests' in the exemption must be limited to people of the same political party as those of the political party seeking the exemption."
The Fourth Department found no support for such a narrow reading, and noted the practical difficulties that would ensue if the Court were to adopt it. Under NYCF's reading, for example, "it would be impossible for a Democrat member of a Governor's office, such as a budget director, to speak to a majority Republican caucus."
In any event, a violation of the open meetings law does not automatically invalidate the statute. A court must first find that there is "good cause" to throw out the statute and invalidate actions taken in reliance on the statute. The Fourth Department rightly noted that the two meetings in question were a small part of the debate leading up to the enactment of MEA, and "given [the plaintiff's] failure to link the alleged OML violations to the enactment of the MEA, which was approved at a regular session of the Senate that was open to the public, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to show good cause why we should exercise our discretion to nullify the MEA."
See you at the Court of Appeals!
* That would be the 2nd amendment (because if there is one thing JC was crazy about, it was his assault rifles). No, NYCF does not get to claim the 1st amendment. I'm sure NYCF are cool with the establishment clause, but I am guessing they are not going to be joining the ACLU as amicus on any free speech issues.
*2 OK, one more nit to pick from the NYCF website. Under "Accomplishments," the group lists "making child pornography illegal." There must be some divine intervention if NYCF was able to "make illegal" something THAT HAS NEVER BEEN LEGAL EVER ANYWHERE. My head hurts. Let's keep going.
*3 I'm kidding! He's clearly a socialist.
*4 Don't look at me. I told you at the top this was technical.
*5 The statute is silent as to whether the guest must partake of the host's salt and bread for the "guest right" to attach.
No comments:
Post a Comment