Next for gay marriage - New York

I think I recall reading in various news reports that the gay marriage bill actually can't be repealed (or it'll at least be very hard to do so), because New York's state constitution doesn't allow referendums.

edited 26th Jun '11 11:11:29 PM by Jeysie

That won't stop them from trying to either sue it in a court of law or get a new bill in to reword it into uselessness.

@Jeysie: Not American, but I do know that different churches within Christianity tend to have different opinions on gay marriage (and other such social issues). There's also a whole lot of people that ID as a religion, but might only go to church twice a year and aren't particularly strict.

@Midgetsnowman The focus is actually going to be on trying to "punish" the politicians who voted for the bill, especially the Republicans who did so.

Edit: There are also Christian churches that are pro-gay marriage. Nobody really talks about their freedom of religion.

edited 27th Jun '11 7:38:20 AM by Karmakin

@Karma: Thats..not really surprising. Any republican who dares to not vote in lockstep needs to be exterminated, after all.

Yes, I hate the republican party, why do you ask?

151

It can't be repealed like how the Californians had Proposition 8 to overturn a court decision, but there could be other ways applicable in New York. I do know California's Constitution has very explicit provisions for voter initiatives, but I don't know about New York's.

Ok, it looks like the legislature can put constitutional amendments on a statewide ballot, but the citizens can't directly apply for one.

edited 27th Jun '11 9:34:44 AM by blueharp

Churches, as private and generally non-profit organizations, are entitled not to perform gay marriages. Nobody has ever disputed that.

Which rituals they perform or not perform are their own business, and the government has no claim to tell them what to do. The flip side of that is that the Churches have no business telling the courts what to do either.

People say this a lot and I completely agree with it. However, excuse my ignorance, but what if the church discriminated some other group? I heard a while back of a pastor who didn't want to do an interracial marriage because it was "unnatural".

So in summary, is it legal for a church to discriminate based on something like race?

If this is not permitable,then I don't see why churches have the right to exclude gay people either from a marriage ceremony.

Logically, anything that applies to racial discrimination should also apply to sexual orientation discrimination, legally. However, since sexual orientations are still a controversial issue, allowing churches to discriminate against them is a necessary evil during the transitional phase. If you try to make the jump to equal treatment all at once, you'll just end up getting nothing done at all as the conservatives fight back harder. Get public treatment first, and then private will follow suit in its own time as people change their views due to public exposure.

I don't think there is anything in place to stop a pastor from refusing to marry an interracial couple (or any couple, for that matter.) I believe it's solely in the discretion of the church who they do and don't hold marriage proceedings for.

Otherwise there would be epic trolling potential for KKK-friendly churches.

I think it's morally wrong to force churches to recognize gay marriage or perform marriage ceremonies against their will, and I'm pro-gay marriage.

People don't seem to accept that it's legitimately against their beliefs, they just think "Oh, someday they'll all come around."

I wish those people would just leave it be. It makes it feel like they are forcing it on them, and I don't think that's right.

Edit: As for the interracial marriage discrimination, there is not even a glimmer of a passage in the bible that can be construed to say that God does not recognize interracial relationships, at least with gays it is a legitimately debatable topic.

edited 27th Jun '11 11:57:21 AM by Barkey

I dunno, Barkey, there's all those passages about the Jewish people being blessed. I'm still going through the middle of the Old Testament right now, and I don't think I've run out of 'evil foreigner cities that God commands the Jews to destroy down to the last man, woman, child and donkey or else they will be CURSED' yet. But really, the root issue is that you can interpret text to mean anything you want it to mean, if you try hard enough. Literature analysis is lol, especially for theological literature.

Also, on a side note, it's really nice to see you posting again. I love having at least one poster on here who isn't liberal but isn't insane, either.

edited 27th Jun '11 12:01:38 PM by Karkadinn

The thing is, that only works if it's the jews are the ones saying they won't marry interracial couples. Christians are probably the most diverse religion in the world, ethnically.

Thanks, I was in Alaska for a few weeks for training, didn't have internet.

edited 27th Jun '11 12:10:07 PM by Barkey

We've kind of grown past that phase.

I don't think any branch of Judaism condemns interracial marriage, but the more conservative branches will demand that the person convert to the Jewish religion, thereby becoming Jewish.

The line between religion, culture, and ethnicity is very blurry in the Jewish world.

^^^ Agreed. Barkey's the one conservative on this board who I actually respect the opinion of.

^^

Sure is. I'm technically Jewish since my mother is a Jew and it is passed matrilineally, despite being a Deist and not a Jew, religiously.

edited 27th Jun '11 12:25:46 PM by Barkey

Under US law, churches have the power to conduct legal marriages. Not only marriages that counts as far as the church goes, but marriages that are recognized by the law, too. Here in Germany that's two different things for example.

That means, in the USA the state has invested official authority into the churches. Which is bad all in itself due to separation of state and church, but more to the point - with state authority comes responsibility. Since they have state authority they should be bound to follow state laws just as much as state offices. Or else lose their state-given authority all together.

That is, churches who don't perform gay marriages are free to do so, but they then shouldn't be able to do state-recognized marriages at all any more.

At least, that's how I see things.

edited 27th Jun '11 1:26:12 PM by Octo

Wait; this isn't just on the legal front? They're going to make churches marry them?

@ Kino: No, churches arent forced to marry gay people.

Otherwise the republicans who voted yes would have voted no (stay classy, guys)

I wouldn't blame them if they had done that.

Churches are generally exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

As long as they don't take tax-payer money anyway. If they do, for example, have a tax-payer funded food bank, then they can't discriminate in its operations.

As far as state-recognized marriages go, I don't see that it makes a difference, the state should also make provision to marry people, letting churches also do it for their criteria does not make for discrimination. It just means the state isn't going to argue over who files the paperwork.

edited 27th Jun '11 1:35:16 PM by blueharp

What difference does it make if a gay couple is wed by a minister, or a justice of the peace, or a boat captain?

Gay people get very huffy about details. I hope they don't demand the right to be wed inside any church, even the ones who oppose them.

edited 27th Jun '11 9:14:29 PM by johnnyfog

I would qualify that as allowing them to demand it for any church to which they belong.

If you're not a member, fair enough, but if you want, you should have a right to set policy. If the rest of the church doesn't agree, then you have a choice of put up with it or leave though.

In other news, the bridal boutique in Park Slope has two mannequins in the window, with one of the women in a tuxedo. :3

@Johnny: the logic usually goes, its a symbolic issue. IE, you don't ask your lover to civil union you.