Should New York gays go a referenda route instead of accepting religious exemptions?

[dsc]

I think a referendum on marriage equality would win in New York but the state Senate is gerrymandered to be GOP forever. So instead of giving away the store to get GOP votes, lets just go to the people. Just wondering what gay New Yorkers think on this.

[bluestateguy]

1. What kind of religious exemptions are being discussed?

If a priest, pastor or rabbi wishes to refuse to perform a ceremony then I believe they should enjoy that right. Nor should the government force any denomination to recognize or host a marriage that they philisophically oppose.

Is anything beyond this being discussed?

[dsc]

2. it sounds like they want them to be able to

deny benefits to married couples, to not rent to married couples, and to not offer services such as catering, etc to marrying couples based on religious or moral pretexts.

[TheWraith]

6. That's a more or less accurate description. nt

[JDPriestly]

16. Do you want a landlord or a caterer who can't accept the fact that

you as a tenant or customer are in a gay marriage?

A landlord can cause a lot of problems for any tenant they don't like - even if they just don't like the tenant's haircut.

And caterers are not that hard to find, so why hire someone who doesn't want to cater to your event?

These are small things.

And religious freedom pretty much protects the right of a religious group to discriminate on pretty much any basis. A religious group that discriminates may find it is driving away members.

[dsc]

17. My biggest fear

would be permitting businesses to deny benefits to their married employees and permitting publicly funded privately run agencies to refuse to place children with married couples.

[JDPriestly]

18. Again, do you want to work for a company that doesn't want to respect your marriage?

I am not sure how that would work with federally funded grants to agencies since the federal government has not yet recognized gay marriage.

[TheWraith]

20. Very few people have a choice right now as to who they work for.

If you do, good for you. But people don't, and are very grateful to have any kind of work in their field, let alone choosing a dream job.

[JDPriestly]

21. Good point. I am totally in favor of laws even a constitutional

amendment that would protect the rights of GLBTs. Don't misunderstand me. I think this is a very, very important issue. I'm not trying to trivialize it. On the other hand, I know that the bigots have a lot of power. While GLBTs have made a great deal of progress over the past 40 years, there is still a long way to go, and inch by inch, we will move toward a wiser policy on this.

[Creideiki]

19. Bosses should not be able to deny benefits to same-sex married couples

that they offer to opposite-sex married couples.

Anyone that offers a public accommodation (caterers) need to offer that public accommodation to all Americans. If there were a religious cut-out for serving African-Americans, you'd better believe that the bigots would have used it.

Clergy should marry only whom they choose. They are not obligated to marry opposite-sex couples, they should not be obligated to marry same-sex couples. HOWEVER, there are plenty of clergy (Church of Christ, Quakers, UU) who have been arguing for the right to marry same-sex couples and they're denied that. Their religion says its okay to be in a same-sex marriage; it's their conscience.

PS--don't take this the wrong way, but your post smells of Privilege.

[RKP5637]

3. That's what I think too. I just don't see why any should be forced by gov. to perform a

ceremony or a denomination be forced to recognize or host a marriage. IMO it's two-way fairness.

[TheWraith]

8. They're not--no one is obligated to perform a ceremony even now.

For all the same reasons that a Catholic church isn't required to marry a thrice-divorced Jew, etcetera, etcetera.

It's a tactic, nothing more nothing less.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Initiative and referendum are not part of the political process in NY

In California, they've run wild, but the vast majority of east coast states don't have this option, unfortunately. Only about half of the states do things that way.

[dsc]

5. not even if the legislature puts it on the ballot?

[TheWraith]

7. As far as I'm aware, no.

Which I honestly can't say I'm sad about, given the toxic effect of "50% plus one" based lawmaking on California's state government.

[dsc]

9. the only reason I thought it was possible

was that Sen Diez challenged us to go that route.

[TheWraith]

10. Well, that might be explained by the fact that Senator Diaz is a fucking crazy person.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if he had no idea how the hell state government works. This is the same guy who habitually dresses up like a cowboy for events in his Bronx district.

[dsc]

11. admittedly he wasn't a great source to use

I just figured he would likely know that as he is in the Senate. Figures though he is a loon.

[TheWraith]

12. You would hope so, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, applying rationality as a standard in NY politics never works as well as one would like. :crazy:

Hopefully, we shouldn't have to deal with him too much longer. Being the only Dem voting against the gay marriage bill kind of puts a target on his back for a primary challenge next year.

[dsc]

13. This is what I was referring to

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/06/quote-of-day-ny-sen-ruben-diaz.html

[TheWraith]

14. Did a little research to refresh my memory.

Because I knew that we do sometimes have ballot propositions, but very rarely, and never for simple things like "pass this law yes/no."

New York only has ballot propositions on issues of amending the state constitution. Gay marriage doesn't require amending the state constitution. More to the point, even getting such an amendment on the ballot would require a majority vote of the State Senate, which is the sticking point for the regular gay marriage law... and I very much doubt Diaz would be willing to support a referendum, even if he was the one who called for it. This more strikes me as grandstanding, trying to make it look like people think there's no majority support for it in the state.

[Chovexani]

15. That commenter was incorrect

That is NOT how the referendum system works in this state. It is limited ONLY to constitutional amendments, and there is none of that signature-gathering bullshit involved like California or other states. The legislature has to vote to kick the amendment to the ballot for people to vote for it. They can't just decide to put random laws on the ballot for people to vote on.