![[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 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.