Ball and other Republicans have stated that they are concerned that the bill does not protect organizations that do not wish to partake in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

From the legislation itself, Section 3:

3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF
34 THE EXECUTIVE LAW, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED
35 TO PROHIBIT ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION,
36 OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES,
37 WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A
38 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
FROM LIMITING EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF
39 HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVING PREFERENCE TO PERSONS
40 OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS
41 CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR
42 WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.

That, to my eyes, is cut and dry and covers organizations like the Knights of Columbus and others. Actually, it’s a lot broader than I initially thought.

As for clergy, they’re exempt from civil action under the following:

S 5. Subdivision 1 of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as
9 amended by chapter 319 of the laws of 1959, is amended and a new subdi-
10 vision 1-a is added to read as follows:
11 1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader,
12 or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the
13 city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhat-
14 tan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture,
15 having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of
16 New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal
17 office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long
18 Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the River-
19 dale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx coun-
20 ty, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated
21 with the American Ethical Union; PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER
22 AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY
23 FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE
24 WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.
25 1-A. A REFUSAL BY A CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF
26 THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER TO
27 SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CREATE A CIVIL
28 CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION.

So what, exactly, is the hold-up? It’s certainly not what they’re telling us it is, because that’s already covered.

Still waiting on an answer to that one.

 

5 Responses to Same-sex marriage legislation: concerns of exemptions unfounded?

  1. Jeffrey says:

    Kevin…thank you for posting the exact language they are trying to attach to marriage equality. Archbishop Dolan stated today that he does not really care what exemptions are attached to the bill, he will still oppose it. By the way, he also said that he opposes civil unions which left me wondering what exactly is his vision for gay Americans? Obviously it is back into your closets and pray the gay away. Sen. Ball is pulling these exemptions out of his butt in the hopes of appeasing the religious right, which is a MINORITY in this state. There is no appeasing them, they simply do not want gay relations codified under any term civil union, marriage or marriage with religious “exemptions”. I have a feeling I know what their vision for gay people is and it does not involve marriage with exemptions.

    • Jeffrey - Quick clarification, this isn’t what they’re trying to attach to the legislation. This is what’s already in the legislation, and was when it passed the Assembly. Which is what makes the claim of wanting the provisions which are already there perplexing.

  2. JayK says:

    Additionally, these protections already exist for religions anyway. Any church can refuse to perform any ceremony it chooses for any reason.

  3. Victoria Roth says:

    Yeah, it’s really redundant language in the first place. But if it will help get the law passed, leave it in there.
    I’m with you though in wondering what more do they want?!?!?!?!

  4. Jango Davis says:

    Organized religon will do anything to kill this legislation. They don’t care about any language in the bill. This is all just a stalling tactic to hold out until the senate gives up and goes home.

    Pretty boldface move and the GOP senators are just a bunch of suckers, falling for it and not having the backbone to call them on their intolerance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>