For three days, we have been waiting.
For three days, those who care about marriage equality in New York have waited, huddled outside of doors, as Republicans have conferenced, as they've met privately with the governor, as they've agonized over -- what? Certainly not the opportunity to do what's right and bring the gay marriage vote -- with an additional Republican signed on -- to the floor.
No, instead, as Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said early this afternoon, they are talking about extreme religious "carve outs" that would mean that if a florist, a caterer, a hotel -- or, say, an adoption agency -- didn't like those gays, well, then, they wouldn't need to serve us.
No.
We have the right to not be discriminated against now. We have the right to adoption now. We are protected now.
And we can marry in Massachusetts (etc.) and have it legally recognized in New York now.
A bill that narrows instead of expands our rights is unacceptable. And no matter how heartbreaking it is, we must say no.
Marriage means a lot to us. And when I say "us," I mean me, personally, since I am engaged to a woman I love deeply and we are waiting on New York to get its act together to marry. But it is not worth it if getting married in New York means that we will be newly discriminated against. It is not worth it to suddenly have to worry that any business -- every business -- in New York State could suddenly discriminate against us because we are a lesbian couple.
No.
That potential bill is a bad bill. It is not about compromise -- it is a backdoor to vicious segregation and discrimination.
Marriage that is defined as a union of two committed people for their mutual love and support does not "redefine" marriage. You know what would "redefine marriage"? A bill that makes it so that if you get married you have fewer civil rights than you had before. If anything killed marriage, it would be that.
The gay marriage bill as it stands is a good one. But accepting one with exemptions that are too broad is not the way to go. If that's our only option, then no thank you. We'll vote the Republicans out of office and try again.
Jennifer Vanasco is the editor in chief of 365gay.com.
Follow Jennifer Vanasco on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JenniferVanasco
Jeffrey Campagna: It's Twitter Time in the Fight for Marriage Equality in New York
(And hello to everyone who has commented!)
Actually, no, it's not inflammatory. The bill as it stands is great, as I say above - I have no issues with those religion carve outs. I think that churches should be free to marry whomever they like. no one expects a Catholic priest to preside over the wedding of two Jewish people, for example.
My problem is with the proposals that folks like Sen. Greg Ball keep proposing. He told CNN last night:
"And you know the toughest ones come to religious protections for individuals who have religious objections. And that's the toughest needle to thread. But I believe the government needs to at least pay respect to that side of the argument as well."
It's hard to know if he really believes that or if it's just a political ploy. But he (and others) keep saying it. And if that's the holdup - if we're in a standoff because some members of the GOP caucus want language like that - then we're in trouble. Because overwriting GENDA is simply not acceptable.
Dorks.
When it comes right down to it, my reading of the 14th amendment suggests I am entitled to gay marriage now in any state of the union and the 'DOMA' is unconstitutional. I suppose that's why I'm not a judge or a lawyer.
if I were a lawyer I might conclude "do unto others as you would have done to yourself" really only applies to Catholics in relation to other Catholics as that seems to be the intent and practice of the Christians that wrote that scripture.
Churches decide which marriages they perform period. This has never been a legal issue. There is no need to carve out exceptions for a problem that does not exist.
Not to mention the thousands of gay New Yorkers who would at least receive state-level protections.
Be truthful: You mean changing the meaning of marriage to suit homosexuals who do not want to meet the current requirements of marriage.
The New Jim Laws
If the gov't & individuals already have no legal recourse to sue or compel a church to marry heterosexual couples they disagree with (for example, non-Catholics, those not baptized, divorcees, etc), then this law should make no difference as all citizens would be treated equally.
As for other private businesses, I suppose they're currently free to discriminate against heterosexual couples, black people, gays, etc in terms of providing services (though not in hiring so much in hiring or other legally protected areas). They'd just have to face PR nightmares in the press & effects on their sales for doing so.
The "carve outs" now being asked for would essentially enshrine the right for private businesses to discriminate against gays simply for being gay. Not for being married & gay, being black & gay, or being lesbians ... or for being or black Jewish lesbians (??), but simply for being gay. Sexual orientation would be the deciding factor.
1: Religious people (the ones who are anti-gay) have a vague notion that what they claim to believe in is complete hooey so they want to have it validated by as many people around them and even better by they state. The argument that gay marriage hurts anything is just made up to justify what they unable to vocalize: that if their beliefs are dismissed by society, then their beliefs are somehow cheapened.
2: Straight people who fear that if you are not virulently anti-gay, you are gay.
3. Closeted gay people who fear that if they are not virulently anti-gay, people will find out they are gay.
and then the lawsuits can start as to why religious expression is a sufficient reason for the discrimination which is already against NY law. discussion on this issue is not something that has been presented so much to the public, and this will offer that chance.
Wow, an actual discussion in public about the acceptability of discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
I also think that the actual impact of such carveouts will be limited to a very few places, and will also give the public a birdseye view of what this is really about.
OR . . . be obstructionist and demand "the whole enchilada NOW" and watch the hard-right backlash solidify. It's a process. Step by step. And throwing away these gains because they're "not enough" is asinine.
As for adoption, they will never get that in the bill, nor should they.
Our rights in NY are very precarious, the recognition of out-of-state marriages is purely based on an opinion of the NY AG, if there were a different AG that could disappear instantly -- imagine the chaos (and regret) then if we take the hardest possible line now and miss by one vote.
Let's get this while we can -- with the fewest possible concessions. The wedding halls and florists who discriminate will soon find themselves in a tough spot, even if they are allowed to discriminate by law. Just as the states that don't recognize marriage equality after SEc 3 of DOMA is overturned will begin to look like backwaters for thinking companies and individuals.