Comments on: Agreement Reached for NY Marriage Equality

By: eugene

eugene — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:02:33 +0000

it’s not that hard to defect from the RCC. just send a letter to the diocesan office where you where baptized. and tell them any number of things, like… you married your partner for instance. you might need to send it a couple of times. they will send you a letter telling you they have listed you as “defected”. got mine and breath free and unencumbered by the label “Catholic”

By: Gus the Protestant

Gus the Protestant — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 03:52:40 +0000

Cut the nonsense, the Catholic’s were trying to maintain their flow of tax dollars to their charities, you know, where they brag about their good works WE pay for… in order to get to heaven, but still wanted to discriminate.

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 00:28:04 +0000

@ Jon

Except sections 1 and 2 seem to void those existing laws for religious organizations (eg, the ones which were upheld when DC enacted marriage equality).

As for DOMA, that’s a tangent, as this applies to NY state law not federal anyway.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 00:06:32 +0000

Stefano, under existing law as interpreted by the courts, I think that a Catholic organization could refuse to provide benefits to a gay employee’s same-sex spouse ONLY IF this is the kind of job that the organization could require to be filled by a good Catholic. The new bill doesn’t expand existing law. So if there is an employee out there for whom this is an issue, they should be more concerned about being fired than benefits.

(The other issue with benefits is that federal law preempts most state law governing benefits, and most practitioners currently read DOMA as allowing employers to not give benefits to same-sex spouses where those benefits are subject to the federal law.)

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:21:13 +0000

I for one will be very surprised if the Republicans don’t go back on their word and refuse to let it come to a vote.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:14:38 +0000

Anyone think this will fail? I doubt it at this point.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:13:33 +0000

Will pass 32-30

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:12:47 +0000

Final vote tally? I say 32-30

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:49:09 +0000

I guess, maybe on the positive side, it might also prevent challenges by religious extremists, but that is even more unclear to me in trying to envision possible scenarios where that might occur.

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:45:45 +0000

Nevertheless, that nonseverability clause does nag at me, because I’m not sure of what the long-term impacts might be.

It sets up a scenario such as what currently exists in California.

That is . . . If, by some chance a suit was brought at some future date and a judgment rendered that would negate the marriage bill in toto then what happens with the marriages already performed and recognized?