One MORE vote for Gay Marriage in NYS (5 PM)

[brooklynite]

from the NY Daily News:

Alesi: I Can Vote For a Gay Marriage Bill

Sen. James Alesi (R-Rochester) just walked into the governor's office to discuss gay marriage.

"I want to go in to inform the governor that if the bill the way that I would like to see it, I'll support it," he said.

He did not clarify.

A source close to the senator said he'd like to see some carveouts to protect religioius groups and affiliated organizations.

This brings the tally to 30 -- two short of passage with three Republicans undecided. Four votes have flipped to "yes" today...

[HockeyMom]

1. Yes, yes, yes

Come on New York, my home, you CAN DO IT.

[HockeyMom]

2. Yes, yes, yes

Come on New York, my home, you CAN DO IT.

[customerserviceguy]

3. I'm a bit curious how people here feel about the religious exceptions

On one hand, they extend the 'right' to prejudice, on the other hand, they make equal marriage possible.

I can't think of any law or court decision that went against the Catholic church because they refuse to marry divorced persons.

[JAnthony]

4. The separation of church and state applies here, as it must...

to remain Constitutional. The state must only pass legislation that does NOT interfere with any religious groups rights of individuals and groups.

I have no problem offering reassurances which are redundant to the U.S. Constitution, in order to obtain equal rights for any minority group within state statutes.

New Hampshire and Maine both have such reassurances, in order to quell opposition from religious folks who feared the state would infringe upon their rights to believe and practice their beliefs.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Would racial discrimination with a 'religious' basis

be afforded protection? I can't imagine that a black person would want to be married in an Aryan Nations church, but where do we draw the line on what religious people can or cannot do in excercise of their freedom of religion, when it involves discrimination?

[JAnthony]

6. Until the 1970's black people were excluded from ......

from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies.

Not quite the same as marriage, but discriminatory, within the church nonetheless, even 110 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. A church policy which was in contradiction to any concepts of equality espoused by government policies, weak, imperfect and selective as those government policies were for so many of those years before Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

[customerserviceguy]

8. I don't recall any lawsuits against the LDS religion about it

But I suppose that if a Mormon motel owner, for example, wanted to keep black people out of their lodgings, they'd have a tough time of it.

[JAnthony]

10. Up until 1964, that was legal for anyone..open ."public accomodation" only

came about as a result of the Civil Rights act of 1964.


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation"

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Yes, Mormons cannot discriminate in their public accomodations, which are certainly NOT religious activities but general interstate commerce.

[B-Stupid]

7. If the government was smart

they would get out of the marriage business all together. Let religious organizations "marry"-everyone else gets a civil union. Benefits and rights would be the same regardless of how it's done.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Agreed

When you take what is a religious 'sacrament' of sorts, and codify it into law, conferring benefits for it, you are "respecting an establishment of religion", as prohibited by the First Amendment, especially if you do not extend that right to everybody.

[aquart]

11. Lots of people can't get married in church for all sorts of reasons.

As long as they can get that certificate from the registry office, THEY'RE MARRIED!

Someday their church might catch up with them, before they leave it behind in the dust of ancient history.