WNYC Radio reports:
Opponents of same-sex marriage who saw the legislation signed into law over the weekend are worried the religious exemptions that allow groups to opt out of holding gay weddings aren't extensive enough.
"There are profound consequences for re-defining marriage," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which has pledged to overturn the law. "And this religious liberty exemption in my view does relatively little or nothing to protect such organizations and individuals."
Rabbi Avi Shafran of the Jewish organization Agudath Israel, said he was concerned about denying same-sex employees health care benefits for their partners.
"If we were to stand on our religious principles, which we would do, and not extend benefits because we don't recognize the union as a marriage, then the state could say that funds ... would be denied us because we are not subscribing to what the state considers to be proper marriages," Shafran said.
He said he was also concerned that businesses such as wedding caterers or florists would be sued because they didn't want to provide service to a gay or lesbian couple.
"Why should individuals be less entitled to religious liberty than organizations?" Shafran asked. "That's the logical problem here -- that what was given to organizations was not given to individuals, and there's no logical reason why that should be the case."
22 Comments
Maybe someone should bring a lawsuit against Cuomo
Religions and religious people have to obey the laws, just like everyone else.
Why do people keep insisting the SSM Civil Rights Movement is incomparable to the African American Civil Rights Movement? While they are not, by any means, the same thing, there are certainly clear parallels, and this article is one of them. Sounds VERY familiar. Discrimination is illegal. Get over it.
Religious people are to obey laws, but religious people are also PROTECTED by the highest law in the land: the US CONSTITUTION, which gives freedom of religion. US citizens who do not recongnize these 'marriages' have a right not to accept them if they don't want to, and according to the pols, they don't want to. They shouldn't be forced to accept it if it is against their religious principles.
http://askanatheist.tv/2011/06/27/christian-privilege-not-being-allowed-to-dominate-others-doesnt-mean-youre-being-oppressed/
What if I said that it was against my religion to provide catering services to Jews? How about if I said that I didn't believe that women should work outside the home so I refuse to provide service to any woman with a job? Do you see how ridiculous this can get? Religious liberty means that you are free to believe whatever you want and you are free to practice those beliefs with others who agree with you. It does not mean that you can legally discriminate against those who do not share your religious beliefs.
Substitute "blacks," "Jews," "women," etc. for "gays" and it becomes pretty evident that those claiming that their right to religious liberty is being trampled are simply seeking the right to legally discriminate against their fellow citizen. That's fine if you want to prevent others from joining your church. It's not okay if you are seeking legal cover for your prejudices.
You are dealing with state contracts not religious marriages. You must adhere to other state contracts as touch this one. Personally you can say "these people are not married in the eyes of god".
You seem to misrepresent the issue.
Its not about minority discrimination.
Its about the right to not participate or contribute to a conduct that one deems immoral, and where society regards conscientious objections to that conduct as reasonably held.
The right to abstain from supporting abortion would be similar.
If someone substitutes "discrimination against Blacks, Jews and Women" for a conscientious objection to abortion it would greatly distort the true nature of the issue.
And that, in essence, is what you seem to do with conscientious objections in the present case.
Its quite obvious that, "...not being allowed to dominate others doesn't mean you're being oppressed."
But that is also a straw man argument that does not present the issue correctly.
A straw man portrays opponents as holding to a less reasonable position than they actually hold, and then it "refutes" that , and not the true position being held.
If you wish to challenge the actual position held by opponents of gay marriage, you can find lots of excellent points well organized into a single resource at A secular case against gay marriage
Challenge the real arguments rather than set up straw men you can easily knock down.
Your comment about a "a state contract" touches an important point.
When a couple marries, society is a party to the contract.
If a powerful sheik manipulated lawmakers so he could legally marry his harem in New York, it would force society to be party to a marriage contract it never agreed to recognize.
That would be a case where "the agent of the people" (elected officials) wrongfully substituted their own will for that of the people.
The same analogy seems to apply here.
It appears that persons with political power have manipulated the law so it substitutes their own will for that of the people, making them party to a contract they did not agree to.
There was a time when 'society was party to' the contract between interracial and interfaith marriages, they (the entire public) might not agree to recognize them, but eqality and justice dictates they must....
"It appears that persons with political power have manipulated the law so it substitutes their own will for that of the people, making them party to a contract they did not agree to."
Wow, Talk about misrepresenting the issue. Like it or not, those who support marriage equality have first amendment rights. We used those first amendment rights to lobby duly elected officials, whose job it is to enact legislation. Your side did exactly the same thing. We won this one, and it's called the democratic process.
"Like it or not, those who support marriage equality have first amendment rights."
So do we, despite your constant attempts to silence and intimidate us.
"We won this one, and it's called the democratic process."
No, allowing the citizens to vote would be democracy.
I used the word "appears" because I presume what happened in Maine happened in New York.
There, activist lawmakers and lobbyists successfully used the "the democratic process" to make same sex marriage into law , which was also signed by the governor.
However, the people of Maine immediately submitted a veto action and struck down the law in the following election.
This shows a distinction can exist between "the will of the people" and a same sex marriage law created by "the democratic process."
New York does not have a veto option, however. And so, I perceive their true will being thwarted for now by the political activism of their agents.
As a side note, there also seems to have been deals and last minute rule changes involved in New York that could have skewed the relationship between the democratic process and the will of the people. See Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces and Last Minute Rule Changes
Lastly, I note that American government was purposely designed with three separate branches so that "agents of the people" (elected officials) could not easily substitute their own will for that of the people.
Our founding fathers presumed that would occur unless safeguarded against.
Its reasonable to think that has occurred in this case because its also typical of what has happened recently in other states.
The real proof, of course, of what the will of the people of New York is, will show in the next election.
The big lie that the SSM crowd always uses is equating human behavior and comparing it to people. The reason why you should constitutionaly discriminate against homosexuals in your private business is because it is conduct and not people.
It is a false analogy to say that can I refuse to serve a Jew the same as a homosexual. A Jewish person is just that a person, but homosexuality is a conduct. Not wanting anything to do with homosexuality is the same as saying you want nothing to do with liars or drunkards. You are allowed to discriminate against human behavior.
I think "the democratic process" and "the will of the people" are two different things in New York right now.
The state of Maine illustrates what I mean. There, activist lawmakers and lobbyists used "the democratic process" to push through a same sex marriage law which was signed by the governor.
However, the people of Maine submitted a veto action before the law took effect and they struck down the law in the following election.
This illustrates how "the will of the people" would not be represented by "the democratic process."
The democratic process would also be skewed where "Politicians...campaign one way, and vote the other," which NOM says occurred in this case
There also seems to have been powerful people moving things behind the scenes per a New York Times article.
Another NY news agency reported last minute rule changes took place that could have affected the outcome.
Lastly, American government was purposely designed with three separate branches so that "agents of the people" (elected officials) could not easily substitute their own will for that of the people.
Our founding fathers presumed that would occur unless safeguarded against.
Given the history of how gay marriage has repeatedly failed when presented to the people, its probable that occurred in New York, making the people there an unwilling party to same sex marriage contracts.
An online poll conducted by the NY Daily News asked the question:
Do you agree with the legislature on gay marriage?
It shows that 66% chose: "No, I don't think that gay marriage should be legal."
I think "the democratic process" and "the will of the people" are two different things in New York right now.
A poll by NY Daily News shows 66% disagree with the legislature on the same sex marriage law.
The state of Maine also illustrates how the "democratic process" in New York can be divorced from the will of the people.
In Maine, activist lawmakers and lobbyists pushed through a same sex marriage law which was signed by the governor using "the democratic process" .
However, the people of Maine submitted a veto action almost immediately and they struck down the law in the following election.
The "democratic process" can be one thing, "the will of the people" another.
The "democratic process" would also be skewed where "Politicians...campaign one way, and vote the other," which NOM says occurred in this case.
Maggie's article int he Wall Street Journal says, "...the four Republicans who voted for gay marriage all told voters in their election campaign they opposed gay marriage—sometimes on video less than a month before they flipped."
How can we have "representative government" when those we vote for decide to not represent us and yet remain in office?
That is clearly a case where "the agent of the people" substitutes its will for that of the people.
As for powerful people manipulating the law, All reports show one man is primarily responsible for the law, Gov Cuomo. This, too, is "the agent of the people" creating a law that substitutes his will for that of the people.
Another NY news agency reported last minute rule changes took place that could have affected the outcome.
Lastly, American government was purposely designed with three separate branches so that "agents of the people" (elected officials) could not easily substitute their own will for that of the people.
Our founding fathers presumed that would occur unless safeguarded against.
Given the above points its seems that very thing occurred in New York.
The people of New York have been made an unwilling party to same marriage contracts by their agents who did not represent the people as they were supposed to do.
I think "the democratic process" and "the will of the people" are two different things in New York right now.
A recent news agency poll shows 66% disagree with the legislature on the same sex marriage law.
The "democratic process" also becomes skewed when "Politicians...campaign one way, and vote the other," which occurred in this case.
Maggie's article int he Wall Street Journal says, "...the four Republicans who voted for gay marriage all told voters in their election campaign they opposed gay marriage—sometimes on video less than a month before they flipped."
How can we have "representative government" when those we vote for decide to not represent us and yet remain in office?
The "democratic process" can be one thing, "the will of the people" another.
Posts not getting through in this thread.
I think "the democratic process" and "the will of the people" are two different things in New York right now.
A poll by NY Daily News shows 66% disagree with the legislature on the same sex marriage law.
The "democratic process" would also be skewed when "Politicians...campaign one way, and vote the other," which NOM says occurred in this case.
Maggie's article int he Wall Street Journal says, "...the four Republicans who voted for gay marriage all told voters in their election campaign they opposed gay marriage—sometimes on video less than a month before they flipped."
How can we have "representative government" when those we vote for decide to not represent us and yet remain in office?
It appears the people of New York have been made an unwilling party to same marriage contracts by their agents who did not represent the people as they were supposed to do.
I think "the democratic process" and "the will of the people" are two different things in New York right now.