NY clerks could refuse to issue gay marriage licenses under proposed religious exemptions.

[TheWraith]

There's been a lot of discussion about the religious exemptions that are being demanded by the Republicans in NY as a price to passing gay marriage. Some of us (myself included) suspect that the exemptions are the Republicans' preferred poison pill, to either delay the bill forever or weaken it beyond recognition. Below are the added exemptions being demanded by Republican Greg Ball:

1) No clergy or other person authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies shall be required to do so against their beliefs or desire, whether religious or not.

2) No religious or tax exempt organizations shall be required to provide any services to which they object because of religious or other beliefs.

3) No house of worship, individual or business with religious objections, or tax exempt organizations shall be required to allow their property or services to be used for any function or purpose to which they object or have their tax exempt status challenged or removed because of failure to permit usage of their property for same sex ceremonies.

The few good principles here are redundant: churches and clergy are already not required to marry anyone or share their property if they don't choose to. However, the Republicans' proposed exemptions are so broad that they would effectively gut the law. Clerks could cite this as a reason to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs, and businesses would be legally empowered to discriminate against same sex couples.

[closeupready]

1. Unacceptable.

K&R

[TheWraith]

3. Personally, I tend to agree, though some people think we should eat the compromise.

The counter argument is that we've already dealt with "conscience provisions" before, and that passing the bill is more important than ironing out the wrinkles. Frankly, I see both sides on this, but in the end it comes down to the Republicans. If they're looking for these exceptions, then I have no doubt it's for the purpose of screwing us.

[CBGLuthier]

2. Could a catholic refuse a certificate to a divorcee?

If their god tells them that people of different races should not marry.......

Of course this is that famous slippery slope. They would then argue they only mean when it is a same-sex marriage which of course then means religion objection has NOTHING to do with it. Just old-fashioned bigotry.

[Unvanguard]

4. Issuing a license is not the same as conducting a marriage.

They are distinct roles. It is my understanding that New York law does not generally obligate anyone to conduct marriage ceremonies (with, if I recall correctly, some weird exception pertaining to New York City.)

[TheWraith]

5. You are correct, but the vagueness of the terms is the problem.

It literally allows, for instance, for a bed and breakfast to refuse a room to a gay couple on religious grounds. "no... individual or business with religious objections... shall be required to allow their property or services to be used for any function or purpose to which they object" And you can bet your ass that staunch small town Republican clerks are going to object to issuing certificates and point to this as the excuse.

[Unvanguard]

10. It would be nice to see proposed legislative text.

The phrasing you point to is indeed vague, and bizarrely so (I don't think Ball really wants a law providing a religious exemption for "any function or purpose to which (individuals or businesses with religious objects) object").

The proposals for religious exemptions that have floated around same-sex marriage legislation for the past few years have not gone further than exempting clerks when other clerks were immediately available to issue licenses, and I don't think even those exemptions have made it into other same-sex marriage legislation. I don't think this is a very likely line in the sand for Republican senators. If they want to kill the bill with this, the more likely route is to push for exemptions for businesses and individuals in the private sector that are more than gay rights advocates can stomach. (I would probably be more willing to compromise there than many others would.)

[MineralMan]

6. Clerks don't perform weddings. I think this is

overblown, really. Nothing about religious exemptions from issuing marriage licenses in that list. Only about providing marriage services. Nothing about government agencies, either. I wouldn't worry about this at all.

[TheWraith]

9. No "individual... with religious objections... shall be required to allow their... services

to be used for any function or purpose to which they object"

A plaintext reading of that could very easily suggest an escape clause for any official who doesn't approve of gay marriage. They might lose the court fight on that one, but it would be another way of it dragging out for years.

[Unvanguard]

11. I think the idea is to exempt individuals who provide wedding services.

Like the New Mexico wedding photographer that opponents of equality are always referring to.

You're right that the phrasing goes broader than that, but I think this is a summary of Ball's objections, not proposed statutory text.

[MineralMan]

12. Yabbut, the thing is that equal protection comes into government

operations. I don't see it working the way you do. There might be a few isolated cases where some moron tries it, but that will result in a quick reprimand and the end of the practice. I wouldn't throw this baby out with that bathwater.

When it comes to government employees, they don't get to do just what they want to do when it comes to things like this. It ain't happening.

They've tried using that in other jurisdictions to block issuance of marriage licenses. They failed miserably, and they'll fail in NY state, too.

This needs to pass now. It really does.

[brooklynite]

7. Would you give up Marriage rights completely as an alternative?

The majority of clerks (and I suspect the majority of Clergy) will be happy to undertake marriages for gay couples. Let the intolerant stand out in the crowd, and fix the law when public opinion overwhelms the holdouts.

[TheWraith]

8. As I said, I see both sides here.

But I'm quite sure that the Republicans do not have the best interests of gay couples at heart here when they're making this offer.

[PDJane]

13. We've had this argument here before.

It didn't pass in that form, but we've had this discussion.

It's nonsense.