The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Gay marriage New York 2011

construct said:
Meh. The religious exemptions will not be overturned anywhere. Churches can refuse to marry whomever they want for whatever reason right now. There's no reason to think that will change whether it's stated in the bill or not. Let it go in.

If they want to add a protection for preachers who want to preach against gay marriage, that's fine too. Let them. They already can preach about the sinfulness of divorce. Let them preach against gay marriage, too.

Both those practices are protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment anyway. Let them put those provisions in.

Now. What else do they want?
Click to expand...

[*BUMP*] ^ this! [/*BUMP*]

Yes, as foul and disgusting as the anti-gay preaching is, it is most definitely free speech, and it's ALREADY protected.
 
construct said:
Okay, now I see a list. Government officials must not be exempted. That exemption would essentially make each official a law unto himself. No, and again No.

Now let's talk about redistricting.
Click to expand...

I don't think Cuomo would sign anything that allowed state officials to discriminate.

I think the issue is just with what state sanctions or penalties religious organizations or charities could face for their legal discrimination. The language in the bill currently protects them from private litigation should they choose to discriminate (as is already their first amendment right), but they are seeking additional protection from any kind of state sanction of that.

This article explains it a bit better.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/17/MN7Q1JVEAP.DTL&type=gaylesbian
 
hotatlboi said:
I don't think Cuomo would sign anything that allowed state officials to discriminate.

I think the issue is just with what state sanctions or penalties religious organizations or charities could face for their legal discrimination. The language in the bill currently protects them from private litigation should they choose to discriminate (as is already their first amendment right), but they are seeking additional protection from any kind of state sanction of that.

This article explains it a bit better.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/17/MN7Q1JVEAP.DTL&type=gaylesbian
Click to expand...

So under this Republican proposal, the state could not prohibit itself from contracting with a religious organization that exercised its exemption. I see. So they couldn't do what San Francisco did forbidding the city from contracting with companies that did not offer same-sex benefits.

I still am not sure I see the problem. Perhaps it might be arguable that refusal to enter a contract for services is a violation of the right to free exercise of religion, at least if one could prove a pattern of such discrimination. If so, then the state would lose its case defending such a law against a challenge anyway. So, what about San Francisco? Does San Francisco have an exemption for religious organizations in its ordinance?

Now whether there is time to hold a conference committee, I don't know. But if the House were to vote in favor of the Senate version with its amendments, then the bill is passed. That could be done in a day, maybe less. There's time.
 
Now I'm hearing that a vote may still happen tomorrow.

Totally up in the air at this point.
 
BUt if it passes, it may be with "protections" for religions that will allow them to discriminate. At this point, I know it won't happen.
 
Ninja108 said:
BUt if it passes, it may be with "protections" for religions that will allow them to discriminate. At this point, I know it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Whether there are protections for religions in this bill is irrelevant. They are there in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So what are you griping about? Would you like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow the government to dictate to churches what they must do? Good luck with that. That wouldn't even get my support, and I'm an atheist.
 
construct said:
Whether there are protections for religions in this bill is irrelevant. They are there in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So what are you griping about? Would you like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow the government to dictate to churches what they must do? Good luck with that. That wouldn't even get my support, and I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm convinced that the protections thing is a total red herring for many GOP senators that allows them to articulate a PC opposition to the bill that does not amount to "I hate gay people".

First it was the protections that were needed, then Cuomo gave them that, now it's that the protections are not enough, if he gives them more, no doubt it will be something else and most of the Republicans will still vote no.
 
scream4ever said:
Session will continue past tonight:

http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/skelos-religious-protections-being-worked-on/

Skelos sounds pretty certain a deal will be reached IMO.
Click to expand...

Severability? He's worried about severability? He wants somebody to challenge the religious institution protections and win so that, without severability, the judge has to throw the whole thing out? He thinks somebody would do that? He thinks a judge would do that? Is he crazy?

No. There are other provisions in the bill that he wants not to be severable. Nope if the religious institutions protection is there then severability needs to be there, too. Hell, severability needs to be there even if the religious institutions aren't even mentioned.
 
Does anybody (not here at JUB) remember that marriage is a civil issue, not a religious one?
The last time I checked, a Justice of the Peace may perform a marriage ceremony. :D

I just saw on the "news" that both sides have taken to the streets. Something's got to give! ;)
 
It won't get passed...there is still too much power wielded by the religious bigots for it to get passed.

And even if it does get passed, the stuff the Religious Reich want in this bill will make it a moot point.
 
The reason the Republician holdouts and their religious Reich backers want their provisions in is so when they are overturned they can claim that they "allowed" gay marriage to pass and it still wasn't enough.
 
"It remains my opinion that such is an imprudent move for Republicans. Conservatives must really believe gay marriage is not inevitable because this is really the best shot they have to settle a deal loaded with exemptions, and this is New York we're talking about, not Alabama."

Yes. If they end up not holding a vote, they will create bigger enemies then anything they could've imagined from the Convervative Party of New York or The National Organization for Marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top