Albany Leaders Reach Consensus on Religious Exemptions for Marriage Measure

[brooklynite]

Source: NY Times

ALBANY– The Cuomo administration and legislative leaders have reached agreement on language that would protect religious institutions from obligations to recognize same-sex marriage, two people involved in the negotiations said on Friday afternoon, potentially paving the way for a vote on the marriage legislation.

Senate Republicans were still discussing the marriage bill among themselves in a close door meeting on Thursday afternoon. And it remained unclear whether — and even if — they would permit a vote on the broader legislation. Assembly lawmakers, which approved an earlier version of the same-sex marriage bill last week, would need to approve the new language in a new vote before the full bill could become law.

Emerging from a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat who is sponsor of the gay marriage bill in the assembly, said that there was an “agreement in principle” on the new language. He predicted the new language would be adopted on Friday.

Gay-rights advocates were hopeful that the same-sex marriage bill, which had been approved by the State Assembly and supported by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, would win passage before lawmakers ended their annual session.

Read more: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/albany-leaders-reach-consensus-on-religious-exemptions-for-marriage-measure/

---

Whatever happens should happen tonight.

[MineralMan]

1. My fingers are still crossed. I wish they'd

just go ahead and pass this soon. I'm starting to get cramps in them.

[sabbat hunter]

2. seems more like

the republicans, mainly Dean skelos are trying to run out the clock on the legislative session and let the bill never get to a floor vote.

The votes are there already. 31 votes for, plus the Lt. Governor to break the tie.


So there is no reason this should not be voted on and approved.

[brooklynite]

5. The countervailing theory is...

...they want to pass the bill on their terms, rather than risk losing the Senate in 2012 and having the Dems pass the bill without the religious exemptions.

[HockeyMom]

3. Good, and I want MY religious exemptions as a straight married

woman that CIVIL Marriage isn't sacred and relgiious.

[bluestateguy]

4. In a way it's being made into a bigger issue than it needs to be

How many gays will walk into a Catholic church or an evangelical Pentecostal church demanding that the priest or the pastor perform their marriage ceremony?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Doesn't the constitution already do that?

This is clearly just face saving bullshit. Whatever. If it provides sufficient cover for some asshole to do the right thing and vote yes, fine.

[BR_Parkway]

7. Consensus Reached on Religious Exemptions in Gay Marriage Bill

Source: NYTimes

ALBANY — The Cuomo administration and legislative leaders have reached agreement on language to protect religious institutions from obligations to recognize same-sex marriage, two people involved in the negotiations said on Friday afternoon, potentially paving the way for a vote on the marriage legislation.

Senate Republicans were still discussing the marriage bill in a closed-door meeting on Thursday afternoon; it remained unclear whether — or if — they would permit a vote on the broader legislation. The State Assembly, which approved an earlier version of the same-sex marriage bill last week, would need to approve the new language before the full bill could become law.

Gay rights advocates said they were hopeful that the same-sex marriage bill would win passage before lawmakers ended their annual session.

Read more: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/albany-leaders-reach-consensus-on-religious-exemptions-for-marriage-measure/

---

Now lets see if they'll let it come to a vote and one or more GOP actually do the right thing instead of being mired down in their own prejudice

[niyad]

8. one more reason to remove their tax exempt status

[grantcart]

9. CNN also confirming the report

[Kerrytravelers]

10. Isn't that already implied?

Churches have rules about who can or can't get married in their individual buildings. For example, almost 8 years ago when we got married, you have to be members of the parish to hold your weddings there. I guess it is conceivable for someone to belong to a church that won't marry them. This legislation won't change that, from my understanding.

So, basically, it's just saying that the bigoted sects can continue to hate and those who don't discriminate can now participate in equality? :shrug:


I think I understand this. If I'm missing something, please let me know! :hi:

[TheWraith]

13. You're not missing anything. It's stupid and redundant and stupidly redundant.

(Rimshot)

But seriously, no, this is grandstanding, and trying to create room for religious groups to refuse to acknowledge legal marriages--it has nothing to do with any threat of churches being forced to perform gay weddings.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. Thanks for the reassurance.

With all that verbiage, it's easy to slide right past something glaring obvious to everyone else! :hi:

[Beartracks]

15. I would not expect a Church to recognize a gay marriage. However...

... if I understand this exception, wouldn't it mean that a gay spouse would find him/herself "not family" if their partner was admitted to, say, a Catholic hospital? I suppose it would be up to the hospital, of course (Catholics have a strong social justice tradition, typically), but it seems to me that the hospital would be within its legal right to NOT recognize the gay marriage if it wanted to make that its policy (Catholics have a strong anti-gay tradition, typically).

==============================

[NYC Liberal]

17. Good question. I haven't read the full amendment, but would such hospitals be

considered "religious institutions"? They still have to be licensed.

[Kerrytravelers]

18. Hmmm... good point. Wasn't there Federal Legislation passed that said same-sex partners have legal

rights in the hospital? I can't remember if it was in the health care reform bill or something else, but I do recall it. So, would that override anything from NY state?

[trud]

11. It never occurred to me

That religious institutions would be required to marry gays. They don't marry people now unless they conform to the tenets of their religion, why is it suddenly different?

[awoke_in_2003]

12. It is part of the gay agenda...

to force preachers to marry them :sarcasm: Seriously, this is good news.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Exactly. If this is all that's required -- a superfluous amendment

(that's redundant to the Constitution anyway) -- so be it.

[ingac70]

19. Churches/ preachers regularly refuse to marry people all the time....

so I don't see why they even bothered.

[Politicub]

20. Ah, the bigotry exclsions. So important

:eyeroll:

[No Elephants]

21. Why do extremists of all religious and political stripes hate the Constitution of the United States?

The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the Constitution of the United States amply protect churches from being forced to celebrate anymarriage they don't wish to celebrate for any reason.

My husband and I had a hard time finding a Catholic Church to celebrate our marriage because he was a Catholic who had not attended church in many years and I was not Catholic. Therefore, neither of us belonged to a Catholic Parish.

And, when the same priest who had married his parents agreed to marry us (in a town where no one in the family lived anymore), it was on condition that I take religious instruction and promise to raise our children as Catholics. (My long lapsed fiance did not have to promise, though he objected to raising our children in any faith more than I did.)

If I had sued, I would have been SOL.

[RyanPsych]

22. Deal reached in NY marriage equality, MSNBC reports

Source: MSNBC

Dylan Ratigan reports that a deal has been reached regarding religious exemptions in the NY marriage equality bill. More details to follow...

No link yet.

---

Yesssssss! Lets go NY! Bring it to a vote!

[sabbat hunter]

23. skelos still isn't allowing it

to the floor
this is complete BS as all we really need is 31 votes, which we have already. 31 + Lt. Governor to break tie = bill passes.

[Renew Deal]

28. How do you know he isn't allowing it?

[sabbat hunter]

31. because according to WNBC

the republicans are still in a private session. no vote has been scheduled. they have ~3 hours before it becomes moot until at least sunday, as there is one assemblyman who is an orthodox jew and will not work past sundown/on sat.

[Renew Deal]

33. I saw something about an "all nighter."

And they want to make it the last thing they vote on before they run out of town.

[sabbat hunter]

34. well if it is an all nighter again

it won't be passing. Sheldon Silver won't be around to call the assembly in to session for a vote on the amendments.

And an all nighter is Bullshit. the votes are there. Skelos doesn't want it to pass so he is doing all he can so it will die in the republican caucus without a floor vote.

[Renew Deal]

45. Doesn't that mean the assembly can pass it as soon as they get back?

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

46. Not true. The Lieutenant Governor cannot cast a tie-breaking vote on legislation. 32 are needed. nt

[sabbat hunter]

50. wrong!

The Lieutenant Governor is the Senate's President. In this largely ceremonial capacity,the Lieutenant Governor presides over the Senate during the legislative session and has a rarely used casting vote to break ties in measures before the house.

http://www.nymtaideas.org/sws/aboutsenate/branches_gov.html

[TheWraith]

52. Not wrong. His ability to break ties is strictly on procedural issues, NOT legislative.

He cannot break a 31-31 deadlock on legislation.

[Mz Pip]

24. I only hope

these "religious exemptions" do not include businesses who just don't want to do business with Gay couples like florists, caterers and event locations.

[Ian David]

26. I'm willing to bet that they do.

So, if you want to rent The Cracker Barrel for your gay wedding, then you're SOL.

[BR_Parkway]

27. If so HRC or GLAAD should offer to post a list online so we all know who

doesn't want our business.

[bluestateguy]

30. This bill will be wonderful stimulus package for wedding related businesses

Florists, caterers, DJ's, tailors, dress shops, hotels, hairdressers, etc.

Indeed, any bigots in these industries should not get to share in the windfall.

[No Elephants]

55. Oh, they'll undoubtedly decline the money, given how strongly they feel about

someone they never met having the same right to marry as they do.

:sarcasm: (in case anyone actually needs the emote)

[Unvanguard]

29. I doubt it. But we'll have to wait for the text. n/t

[Unvanguard]

32. It doesn't, actually.

You can read the text http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011">here.

[Ian David]

37. That's not bad. It's pretty much what they would have had anyway under the first amendment. n/t

[aquart]

44. Exactly. But they can still campaign on how they protected religion from government.

Is everybody happy now? CAN WE VOTE?

[aquart]

35. In New YorK?

So fucking what? They'll go broke and the ones that do business with gays will get rich.

Do you think publicized gay weddings won't set the trend for straight weddings? Be serious.

Are you worried that you won't get the kosher caterer of your dreams? If they think their straight clientele will get huffy, the smart ones will just spin off a subsidiary with a separate name.

I was in the gift business for 20 years. I LOVE WEDDINGS!!!! Gifts for the couple, the bridesmaids, the groomsmen, gifts for everybody! And then, regular as clockwork, ANNIVERSARIES!

In this economy, you think Bed, Bath, and Beyond won't register you? Or Tiffany's? LOL!

They're all waiting with their hearts in their mouths for this to pass. Then, PARTAY!!! And all their kids go to college.

[Mz Pip]

39. Yesterday this issue

was discussed some. Sorry I don't have the link but I thought the idea that a non-religious business could possibly claim a "religious exemption" as assinine. Weddings are good for the economy and I can't see businesses turning business down but there's always someone whose holier than thou moral certitude will throw a fit over it. Maybe not in NYC but upstate has its share of fundy twits.

[aquart]

43. They can have the fits if we can have the weddings.

And let's not forget the lawyers who get the pre-nups and divorces.

(I say "we" as a former member of the gift industry. I don't claim to be more than I am.)

[Abq_Sarah]

42. Heck, just about anywhere

Unless it's a religious charity organization, most private businesses WANT customers. I don't care if my customers are gay, straight, democrat, republican, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.. Their money pays for my employees continuing employment.

[nichomachus]

47. Maybe caterers and florists will do well. Not sure about gifts.

Most of the gay couples who are getting hitched have been living together for a while and really don't need much in the way of gifts. Our wedding was "cards only." We have enough stuff in the house without adding more.

I think gifts are a big thing for a young couple that is getting married for the first time and setting up housekeeping. But, as I said, most of the gay couples I know who got married here in CA during that brief window of sanity already had pretty established households and didn't want gifts.

[aquart]

51. Your decision. And nothing for your anniversary?

Nothing for Valentine's Day? Nothing for the groomsmen? Best man? Maid of Honor? Nothing for the guests?

You only thought in terms of presents for YOU?

[nichomachus]

53. Nope

Way beyond the point of buying shit that peiple don't need. Just cards.

[mitchtv]

36. Let 'm

there are more than enough businesses who will be more than happy to take the money.

[closeupready]

41. IMHO, religious exemptions don't matter, since they would likely be overturned as Commerce Clause co

contradictory, thus, unconstitutional.

[sabbat hunter]

56. However

if the religious exemptions are overturned, the whole bill will be.

Furthermore, due to the separation of church and state, government cannot force religious organizations to perform marriages.

[Chan790]

57. Why?

If they're stupid enough to take money out of their own pockets because they're bigots, I say bully for them. It'll be their businesses going under when they're not profitable and I'd be just as happy to see that money spent in businesses that support equality.

[Mz Pip]

58. I have a big problem

when these kinds of exemptions. It's not just about discrimination of gay people but about discrimination of minorities, women, disabled, etc in the marketplace. It's too reminiscent of times when people wouldn't rent or serve minorities.

Granted I would not patronize a bigoted business but I also don't think they should be given license to discriminate either. Separation of Church and State is one thing but allowing a private business the same discretion is not okay by me.

[HockeyMom]

25. I am ready to RIP UP my sacred, holy, NYS CIVIL Marriage License

from 1974 over this. Screw your RELIGION.

[aquart]

38. Legal MARRIAGE is the goal.

Religions will do what they want. That's in the constitution.

But all the legal rights that have been denied because of lack of a marriage license...which has always been civil in this country? OMG, is that finally happening here?

If they vote tonight, it's a good thing I'm going to Queens tomorrow because nobody will be sleeping in the Village or Chelsea.

For Dennis Meiners, who was fortunate enough to find a true partner for life but was never allowed to marry him. And for Ruben, who still misses him. If this passes and you hear thunder, it will be Dennis and friends cheering from heaven.

[HockeyMom]

40. Although I no longer live in NY, both my children do

and I was legally married in NYS, grew up in both the West Village, and spent my young adulthood in Chelsea. Why are these religious BIGOTS not only hijacking my daughter's civil rights, but also MINE as a non-believer. I have a 1974 NYC Marriage License. When did THAT become sacred and holy? No, no, no. I don't want them to force their religion in my gay daughters face, or MY marriage.

I have not one, but TWO horses in this race; equal civil rights, and freedom FROM religion.

[Lucinda]

54. :)

"For Dennis Meiners, who was fortunate enough to find a true partner for life but was never allowed to marry him. And for Ruben, who still misses him. If this passes and you hear thunder, it will be Dennis and friends cheering from heaven."

♥ ♥ ♥

[msongs]

48. Great! this means gays CAN discriminate against others on religious grounds :-) nice nt

[ImNotTed]

49. K&R