![[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 03:22 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.