Gay Marriage Approved by N.Y. Senate

Boom Boom wrote:

Gay Marriage Approved by N.Y. Senate

excerpt:

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO Published: June 24, 2011

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed, and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

1. Good. This was always bad law and finally there is overwhelming evidence that it hurts many people.

2. Same-legal-sex marriage. In a state where you need a major medical procedure done to have your lived gender recognized, this is an important distinction.

3. And GENDA, like bill C-389, is where? Oh, right, DOA, because trans rights are a bargaining chip these days, just as they were when a gender identity free non discrimination act was passed, like when bill C-250 was passed, and nothing more.

This is fantastic news.  And, amazingly enough, the legislation passed in a Republican-controlled NY Senate.

The fact that this right was established democratically makes its legitimacy unassailable by SSM opponents.

[bagkitty, in his role as the little dark cloud that appears to rain on the parade]

Hey, I am all happy and shit that this passed (I am happy any time any state actor removes a barrier to equal treatment under the law to anyone) but I think we should all be paying attention to the extension of religious privilege that has accompanied it. The negotiations that finally allowed the bill to pass the NY Senate saw a major extension of privilege under the guise of protecting religious rights.

Quote:

S 10-B. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION.

1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. ANY SUCH REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES SHALL NOT CREATE ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.

2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB LISHED OR MAINTAINED.

There is an excellent piece on the potential consequences of this so-called "compromise" over religious rights over on Towleroad. It boils down to wondering how much of a victory this particular vote is -- it is all well and fine to be allowed to enter in the same civil contract that other citizens are allowed to, but not so much of a victory to be able to call your partner your spouse, and yet run the risk of still being denied visitation rights if they are hospitalized.

TowleroadArticle wrote:

This appears to be what I was worried about. In New England and in the Mid-Atlantic states (as, I am sure, elsewhere), we have lots of hospitals connected to religious orders (I was born in one!), which could "tak[e] such action" to promote their religious principles by denying spousal visitation rights to legally married same-sex spouses. On the other hand, hospitals with emergency rooms still have to take patients as they come; but it seems that a hospital that treats a gay man, but refuses to let his spouse sit by his death bed, would not be in violation of this law. Thoughts?

An exemption that would allow the theological concerns of the "religious" to be allayed [i.e., explicitly spelling out that there can be no compulsion of any cleric to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against the dogma of the sect, and, by extension, the right of the sect to refuse admission into their place of worship of those who would ritually "pollute" the space] is something that can be defended as a religious right. Anything more than that is merely enshrining privilege... and that is a shameful thing.

[/bagkitty, in his role as the little dark cloud that appears to rain on the parade]