![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWas going to go back to watching Friday Night Lights but landed on the live telecast of the Same-Sex vote/debate in the New York State Senate. So, I'm watching it.
Do have a question? Do you think religious organizations and religious beliefs should be granted precedence over and above a human being's right to choose which fellow non-related human being they choose to marry?
Also to what degree should religious freedom be protected over all other human rights?
It's an interesting question. One I find difficult to answer objectively.
The reason I ask is the Amendment that is the deciding measure on whether the Same-Sex Marriage Bill gets passed in the NY State Senate is all about protecting religious objections to same-sex marriage.
The Religious Exemption Amendment to the Bill on Same Sex Marriage provides multiple religious exemptions. If your organization is a religious one or has a religious doctrine that opposes same-sex marriage - then you don't have to perform same-sex marriage in that organization and the government cannot force you to. This is a bit different than Massachusetts, in that if the religious organization and/or an affiliated organization/institution that is opposed to same-sex marriage based on religious views wishes to receive funding for senior services or day-care or other services that are state funded, will not be punished nor have their proposals for state aide or state funded grants denied. In short, religious organizations are protected from legal action if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. The sticking point for the prior bill was the lack of religious protection.
So my question remains - should religious organizations and religious views be protected? To what degree should religious freedom and views be protected? How far should that protection be taken? And what are the costs of doing this in the long run? Or what are the costs of not protecting those rights? Not compromising and protecting someone's religious objections? It's a slippery slope argument and rife with controversy.
I don't know about you but this whole religion business makes me want to sing John Lennon's Imagine...or at least listen to it. Speaking of...
Stephen Saland, Republican - undecided until now: "I have to do the right thing and the right thing means to ensure that all human beings are treated equally."
Rueben Diaz has tried to debate it. Democrate Senator and Pentacostal Minister - who is against the bill and wants to debate it. Reuben Diaz states - "The Catholic Conference states - that the religious exemption doesn't change how they feel or the fact that vote yes on this bill would be detrimental to the structure of society at large." Reuben believes God not the law has decided this issue a long time ago. And he's quoting when they voted against it last year, and why do we have to re-decide it. Diaz's granddaughter is a lesbian, and has two sons who are gay. He's the Senator from the Bronx, you can barely understand him. And he's trying to perform a filibuster to stop the bill. They are fighting him and stating that he is out-of-order and he has agreed to lay it aside and he has two minutes and can't go more than that. Reuben Diaz is saying that the Senate is trying to take away his right to speak on the bill. The President of the Senate - head guy is telling him that we need to be respectful of everyone in favor of the time limit. You are in violation of the rules. The rules state two minute time limit. (NY Senate is notorious for this type of behavior.) Diaz insists he has a right to speak against, I am the only the Democrate voting against this bill, a badge of honor that I shall wear. This guy is a piece of work. They finally got him to shut up. Because they got a long list of Senators who all feel the need to explain their votes. This is a historic decision.
Oh, we got Thomas Duane - State Senator from Manhattan, Democrate - who tells the story about coming out to his Catholic parents in the 1970s, when he was 17. He fought for civil rights and social justice. His parents had told him that he would be beaten, abused, and have no rights. In the 1980s - he fought for non-traditional families - who were getting evicted. And got a bill passed to protect them. Perfect counter-point. Makes Diaz look like a bigoted ass. He's been asked to keep it short. But he also wants his voice heard. Oh god, he wants to thank everyone. This is going to be a long vote if every Senator feels the need to do this. People! Vote already. We honestly don't care about all the people you want to thank. You aren't getting an award - you are voting on a historic bill.
This is magnamious of him - and generous, he's stated that everyone is a hero here. That there are no villains regardless of what side they are on. That he realizes this is a really difficult decision and difficult vote.
Now, we have another one - who was negative on it. "As a Catholic, I was raised that marriage was between a man and a woman. But I'm also an attorney and I know there are other issues involved and other concerns. I've been taught to think through logically and rationally. I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who is to say that someone else does not have the same rights I do with my wife. My research states that they have the right....The issue boils down to this, I've done the research, my belief is that a person can be wiser today than yesterday when you do the work - I cannot deny the people who make this state the great state it is, the same rights I have with my wife. I also feel we need the religious protections and if we don't vote it through now the religious protections won't be there."
Okay - the bill? It passed!! It passed!! YAY! 33-29! Very Proud to be a New Yorker tonight. Finally!
This is the most populous and biggest state in the US to make Same-Sex marriage legal to date. It is the 6th state to legalize it. Yet another reason NY is better than California!!! (grins evilly).
The tide is turning. Love does win over hate. There's a celebration in NYC right now.
HISTORY MADE!!
Do have a question? Do you think religious organizations and religious beliefs should be granted precedence over and above a human being's right to choose which fellow non-related human being they choose to marry?
Also to what degree should religious freedom be protected over all other human rights?
It's an interesting question. One I find difficult to answer objectively.
The reason I ask is the Amendment that is the deciding measure on whether the Same-Sex Marriage Bill gets passed in the NY State Senate is all about protecting religious objections to same-sex marriage.
The Religious Exemption Amendment to the Bill on Same Sex Marriage provides multiple religious exemptions. If your organization is a religious one or has a religious doctrine that opposes same-sex marriage - then you don't have to perform same-sex marriage in that organization and the government cannot force you to. This is a bit different than Massachusetts, in that if the religious organization and/or an affiliated organization/institution that is opposed to same-sex marriage based on religious views wishes to receive funding for senior services or day-care or other services that are state funded, will not be punished nor have their proposals for state aide or state funded grants denied. In short, religious organizations are protected from legal action if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. The sticking point for the prior bill was the lack of religious protection.
So my question remains - should religious organizations and religious views be protected? To what degree should religious freedom and views be protected? How far should that protection be taken? And what are the costs of doing this in the long run? Or what are the costs of not protecting those rights? Not compromising and protecting someone's religious objections? It's a slippery slope argument and rife with controversy.
I don't know about you but this whole religion business makes me want to sing John Lennon's Imagine...or at least listen to it. Speaking of...
Stephen Saland, Republican - undecided until now: "I have to do the right thing and the right thing means to ensure that all human beings are treated equally."
Rueben Diaz has tried to debate it. Democrate Senator and Pentacostal Minister - who is against the bill and wants to debate it. Reuben Diaz states - "The Catholic Conference states - that the religious exemption doesn't change how they feel or the fact that vote yes on this bill would be detrimental to the structure of society at large." Reuben believes God not the law has decided this issue a long time ago. And he's quoting when they voted against it last year, and why do we have to re-decide it. Diaz's granddaughter is a lesbian, and has two sons who are gay. He's the Senator from the Bronx, you can barely understand him. And he's trying to perform a filibuster to stop the bill. They are fighting him and stating that he is out-of-order and he has agreed to lay it aside and he has two minutes and can't go more than that. Reuben Diaz is saying that the Senate is trying to take away his right to speak on the bill. The President of the Senate - head guy is telling him that we need to be respectful of everyone in favor of the time limit. You are in violation of the rules. The rules state two minute time limit. (NY Senate is notorious for this type of behavior.) Diaz insists he has a right to speak against, I am the only the Democrate voting against this bill, a badge of honor that I shall wear. This guy is a piece of work. They finally got him to shut up. Because they got a long list of Senators who all feel the need to explain their votes. This is a historic decision.
Oh, we got Thomas Duane - State Senator from Manhattan, Democrate - who tells the story about coming out to his Catholic parents in the 1970s, when he was 17. He fought for civil rights and social justice. His parents had told him that he would be beaten, abused, and have no rights. In the 1980s - he fought for non-traditional families - who were getting evicted. And got a bill passed to protect them. Perfect counter-point. Makes Diaz look like a bigoted ass. He's been asked to keep it short. But he also wants his voice heard. Oh god, he wants to thank everyone. This is going to be a long vote if every Senator feels the need to do this. People! Vote already. We honestly don't care about all the people you want to thank. You aren't getting an award - you are voting on a historic bill.
This is magnamious of him - and generous, he's stated that everyone is a hero here. That there are no villains regardless of what side they are on. That he realizes this is a really difficult decision and difficult vote.
Now, we have another one - who was negative on it. "As a Catholic, I was raised that marriage was between a man and a woman. But I'm also an attorney and I know there are other issues involved and other concerns. I've been taught to think through logically and rationally. I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who is to say that someone else does not have the same rights I do with my wife. My research states that they have the right....The issue boils down to this, I've done the research, my belief is that a person can be wiser today than yesterday when you do the work - I cannot deny the people who make this state the great state it is, the same rights I have with my wife. I also feel we need the religious protections and if we don't vote it through now the religious protections won't be there."
Okay - the bill? It passed!! It passed!! YAY! 33-29! Very Proud to be a New Yorker tonight. Finally!
This is the most populous and biggest state in the US to make Same-Sex marriage legal to date. It is the 6th state to legalize it. Yet another reason NY is better than California!!! (grins evilly).
The tide is turning. Love does win over hate. There's a celebration in NYC right now.
HISTORY MADE!!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 08:54 am (UTC)Inasmuch as the laws for private vs. public entities allow.
There need be no particular State interest in a requirement for me to have a wedding in St. Patrick's Cathedral. The private organization ought have latitude to decide whom it wishes to conduct services for - that is part and parcel of what allows it to define itself as a private entity.
*Inasmuch as marriage is a state contract, and reasonable opportunities exist for me to get a legally allowed marriage of my preference. (among others, every municipality/county) has a state sanctioned judge/marriage authority than can (and should be required) to perform the function. Were there insufficient options, such that all marriages were done by private religious agencies and choice did not de facto exist, we'd have a different argument.
That said, if the state says "you're married", then private entities should be required to accept that. I.e. a Catholic hospital with a "spouse or family member only policy" ought accept it if the state does - even if the Church doesn't perform marriages itself. I would see that as the
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:10 pm (UTC)From the Senate's explanation of the Amendment, I'm pretty sure it only exempts religious organizations from "performing" same-sex marriages and/or
their affiliates being penalized because of their refusal to perform.
For example - a Catholic Hospital is not going to be penalized if it's chaplain refuses to marry a same-sex couple. But, it does still have to recognize the married "legal" status of the couple, just not the "religious" status. I think the amendment made that distinction. (I may ask someone else on my flist who actually researched the amendment for his ACLU internship.)
Because as you stated above - a Catholic Hospital or say Yeshuvia University ought to accept the legal married status of a same-sex couple even if their religion refuses to. But by the same token, they shouldn't be penalized if they refuse to perform the marriage itself - since there are other options available.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:35 pm (UTC)My initial thought is that officers of the state don't get to object to settled state law on religious grounds - although this though would easily stir up the aggrieved faction and would make the courts and politicians very squeamish. But would provide a de facto barrier to sanctioned state activity. I wonder how the law anticipates it
I'm sure it's something opponents are depending upon to restrict the extended right.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 04:02 pm (UTC)I think this has come up in other states and is part of the reason so many people were opposed in NY State - they didn't like the fact that a Judge or a licensed Justice of the Peace would be forced to do something that they are morally opposed to - on religious grounds. Although - considering the number of unions they do license...I find this a bit eye-rolling.
I'm not sure if the religious protection amendment extends to individuals - that is a bit of a slippery slope. I think it might but only to a degree.
NYC however is vastly different than many places in that there are a lot of place people can go to get legally married. We have about ten Unitarian Churches in the area which will perform the ceremony without any problem.
My initial thought is that officers of the state don't get to object to settled state law on religious grounds - although this though would easily stir up the aggrieved faction and would make the courts and politicians very squeamish. But would provide a de facto barrier to sanctioned state activity. I wonder how the law anticipates it
There is precedence for this - since we had a similar issues with inter-racial marriage. After the Supreme Court ruled in Love vs. Virgina that inter-racial marriage is legal in all states, this came up a lot - people opposing based on religious grounds. (sigh - although many religions did change their minds and many did so before Love.).
In the case of inter-racial marriage - it did not extend to individuals.
I'm not sure about same-sex marriage. I do know Massachustus had a few cases pop up on the issue, as has Iowa and most notably California. California is the one that ended up legalizing same sex marriage, then passing a law making it illegal, only to have it's judicial system overturn it on state constitutional grounds - that decision has been appealed up to the California State Supreme Court - I think, and was recently rejected. People are closely watching to see if it makes it to the Federal Supreme Court - I sort of hope it doesn't because I do not trust Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas as far as I can throw them.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 04:12 pm (UTC)But this is State law, not NYC right? Might be a real issue if you are somewhere out near Erie and can't easily travel to Manhattan.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 11:20 pm (UTC)(Having lived in all three areas - I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the further out you live from an urban area the less you deal with people who aren't family or exactly like you, so you tend to be a bit more narrow in your focus. Of course the information age has changed some of that but not a lot.)
So, yes, I think it will crop up a lot in the rest of the state. Which is why I'm curious as to the extent the Amendment protects individuals whose religious beliefs prevent them from performing the marriage rite. That will most likely be an issue for the State's Courts to decide and may eventually end up at the Federal Supreme Court.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 11:43 am (UTC)Short answer: No.
To what degree should religious freedom and views be protected?
Slightly longer answer: Freedom of speech, not freedom of action.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 12:19 pm (UTC)Generally speaking, no, of course not. On the one hand, I can think it would be weird if you could legally force private religious societies to perform private religious ceremonies against their will. (Has anyone actually suggested that they should be forced to marry gay couples, or is that another scare tactic about the evil "gay agenda"?) Then again, I'm sure a lot of churches are divided on the issue, and I suppose this could mean non-bigoted ministers/priests/etc could be reprimanded or fired for performing same-sex weddings and wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.
On the other, I think you're entering into a world of murky water if you start handing out loopholes saying you don't have to follow the law if you really believe you don't have to follow the law. If they don't want to perform weddings, that's one thing. But like
But mostly, yay!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:24 pm (UTC)It's when...the religious objection interferes with other rights that things become problematic. For example - a Catholic hospital should not refuse
to provide medical services or deny the power of attorney of a same-sex family member. It's when the religion actively penalizes or hurts someone that the line is crossed.
From the explanation provided last night - I think the Amendment does not cross that line. It only protects religions from performing the marriage and/or recognizing it in a purely religious sense. Which isn't a major problem - after all the Catholic Church will not recognize a second marriage - someone who has been divorced and then gotten re-married. You have to get an annulment to be married again in the Catholic Church. Also, another antiquated rule in the Catholic Church - is you can get annulment if you never have kids or choose not to - because the point of marriage is procreation. Considering my brother married his wife in a swimming pool with a minister from the church of craft performing the ceremony? This doesn't bother me all that much. Particularly since his wedding is the best one I've been to - the shortest, the most touching, the most uplifting, and the only one I cried during. And amongst the very few that did not end in divorce. (And I've been to or was a bridesmaid in several weddings).
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:42 pm (UTC)With the expected repeal of DADT, the Navy floated an internal memo that would allow Chaplains to conduct marriage for gays in jurisdictions where it was allowed, if the religious denominations accepted it. It got leaked to congress, created a firestorm on The Hill, and the Navy leadership publicly backed away from it. It's been made clear that Congress won't permit the policy even if DADT repeal gets fully certified.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 12:47 pm (UTC)I'm very proud of NY, I just hope we can hold onto it in Iowa... and I hope that California will soon follow suit!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:22 pm (UTC)In France recently the Socialist Party made a proposition of law before the National Assembly which got rejected. But it's probably only a question of months or at worst a few years before same-sex mariage becomes legal in France too. The Socialist Party has decided to bring this question up for the next presidential elections and even in the right wing parties there're deputies who are in favour of it.
As for the questions you asked, religious beliefs should be protected as part of the right to freedom of opinions (and it's an atheist with very low tolerance for religion who's telling you that)but only in as much this right doesn't infringe on other human rights.
Seing the religious mariage as part of the private sphere and not linked to any rights whose refusal could harm anybody, I'm not in favour of any obligation for the churches to mary people of the same sex. But that doesn't prevent me from hoping for more acceptance from said churches. This is only valid for the religious mariage in as such it is an unnecessary religious ceremony and certainly does not extend to the freedom to refuse work or shelter or education or any other rights to people who don't conform to your religious beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:44 pm (UTC)The US is whole other issue - because it's a state by state thing here, which I think it needs to be. I don't think it will work if the Federal Government decides - although that is what ultimately had to happen in regards to inter-racial marriage. This is very similar to that situation. When inter-racial marriage was deemed illegal - it was mainly the traditional religious organizations that were opposed.
In NY - making marriage legal is also a bigger deal in some respects than California, because in NY - you can not obtain spousal benefits, have joint property, and joint income tax returns or claim any of the benefits of being married - if you are not "legally married" - living together for 20 years is not enough. This is different from the state of California - which will recognize a couple who has been living together for 20 years in California as "married". This became a huge issue during and after 9/11 - same-sex couples who had been together for 20 years, could not obtain death benefits or be considered a family member - when their spouse died in the towers.
Anyhow, it really is a question of "doing no harm". Tolerance. Also there are religious institutions that do recognize same-sex marriage - The Unitarian Universalist Church does, as do many other Christian churches.
Not all religious institutions are against it. Telling these organizations - we are not forcing you to perform the marriages or to recognize them in a "religious" sense does put an end to that fear at least. The real battle that I see coming - is in regards to other rights...such as a Catholic orphanage refusing to allow a same-sex couple's adoption of a child to go through, or a Catholic hospital refusing to acknowledge the same-sex spouse of patient - as that patient's legal spouse and being legally responsible for their medical treatment. That is bound to come up down the road. NY has a lot of religious affiliated medical instuitions - Mount Sinai, Beth Israel, St. Vincents, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York Methodist Hospital all come to mind.
CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-26 01:12 am (UTC)Note that what I say here applies only to hetero couples; the status of gay couples is still up in the air as a result of the litigation over Prop. 8.
Re: CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-26 02:06 am (UTC)I thought California was a common law state for some reason. (Probably all those celebrities not getting married but living in California for years..)
Also do you know if that amendment regarding the religious exemption extends to individual religious beliefs - ie. a Justice of Peace who refuses to perform a same sex marriage? I could not tell. Asked Jeres Keyes - (tyreseus on ATPO who studied it as well.)
Still watching California - and whether it will go to the Federal Supreme Court. Right now, it doesn't look like it - but you never know.
Re: CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-26 05:00 am (UTC)I haven't looked at the religious protections in the NY statute, so I don't know. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll read them and let you know.
The CA case still has a ways to go in the lower courts. I doubt it will get to the Supremes before the 2012 election, and frankly I'd prefer that from a strategic view. The more time attitudes have to change, the better, hard as that is for those denied their rights in the meantime.
Re: CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-26 09:19 pm (UTC)Re: CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-27 12:45 am (UTC)It's the Amendment to the Act, which I'm interested in.
Re: CA Common law marriage
Date: 2011-06-27 12:52 am (UTC)Agree on the CA case - I don't want it in the US Supreme Court just yet.
Not sure what the court would do with it - we have Clarence Thomas, Scalia,
and Roberts...which does not bode well. It's going to take time unfortunately...but attitudes are slowly changing, which is good news.