The New York State Senate is voting on the marriage equality bill at this very moment! Come on equality!
Jennifer
I actually have faith in government from time to time. Not much. And only some, but New York gets it right a lot.
Yay! The amendment passes, only 44 more states left to go!
Tekla, I feel the same. Our government is not perfect, but it is better than no government. This one they got right.
Yay!
Jennifer
N.Y. Gay Marriage Bill Gains Key Votes
Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage rallied on Friday after it was announced that the State Senate would vote on the measure in Albany.
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: June 24, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/new-york-state-senate-to-vote-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=NY-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-SSM-062411-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/new-york-state-senate-to-vote-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=NY-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-SSM-062411-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click)
ALBANY — Thirty-three state senators have publicly declared they will support legalizing same-sex marriage, all but assuring passage of the measure which will make New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples can wed.
The Senate took up the measure just before 10 p.m., and the Senate galleries were packed with gay couples in support of the bill and religious opponents of it.
---
33-29 vote, marriage equality passed in New York State!
YAY! 44 more states to go.
Jennifer
It doubles the number of people population wise who can get married. The challenge to the Cali law is just about over, and that will almost double it again. It's possible that going into 2012 over half the people will have it. At which point the Feds will cover it.
Praise the Lord!
Kate D
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2)
If a couple are married in NY, how can another state refuse to recognise it?
If a couple, who live in Texas or whatever, go to NY, get married. How can they have their marriage dismissed when they return home?
If a couple, who live in Texas or whatever, go to NY, get married. How can they have their marriage dismissed when they return home?
Technically its DOMA that allows that to happen in this case, and only in this case (marriage), but its one thing when Oklahoma and Arkansas are complaining about Iowa, it's a lot harder to ignore NY.
Quote from: spacial on June 25, 2011, 04:18:46 AM
If a couple are married in NY, how can another state refuse to recognise it?
If a couple, who live in Texas or whatever, go to NY, get married. How can they have their marriage dismissed when they return home?
short answer is yes.
longer answer is that such refusals will eventually be the source of litigation. Where we see the issue come up most frequently is when the couple decides to get divorced. Good example of that is the
Naylor case going on in Texas right now- Travis County judge signed the decree, the 3rd Court of Appeals at Austin refused the request of the Atty General to intervene and the matter is now at the Texas Supreme Court. One of the issues the TxSupCt has to consider is that the Travis decision conflicts with a ruling from the 5th Court of Appeals at Dallas on a same-sex divorce that had been granted somewhere in the Dallas area. I have previously linked to the AG's brief on merits as well as a third-party amicus that was filed last month...
I am also not sure whether any same-sex marriage tax returns have been the subject of Tax Court rulings related to filing status.
NY legalizes gay marriage 42 years after Stonewall
By KAREN ZRAICK, Associated Press – 4 hours ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hln4-hwmc_03_T8Hn80WN8vDC9fg?docId=e9d8dfed9dc5409084a0fe2ba877339c (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hln4-hwmc_03_T8Hn80WN8vDC9fg?docId=e9d8dfed9dc5409084a0fe2ba877339c)
NEW YORK (AP) — Champagne corks popped, rainbow flags flapped and crowds embraced and danced in the streets of Manhattan's Greenwich Village as New York became the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill shortly before midnight Friday, almost 42 years to the day that the modern-day gay rights movement was born amid violent encounters between police and gay activists at the Stonewall Inn.
Hundreds who gathered inside and outside the landmark bar erupted in celebration after the Republican-led state Senate cast the decisive vote.
I was at Stonewall when the bill passed...and was glitter bombed. I know that I probably should be happy and celebrating but I can't see myself doing that when GENDA which has been around longer than the marriage bill still hasn't come up for a vote in the senate and would give me protections when it comes to public amenities...and job discrimination.
Buzzkill or Debbie Downer?
Found this article which contains these words:
QuoteThe amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not "result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation."
.................
Finally, the legislation contained what is known as an inseverability clause. If a court found any part of the act to be invalid, the entire legislation would also be invalid. The clause is an important provision to Republicans because it means that the marriage legislation would be at risk if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/religious-exemptions-were-key-to-new-york-gay-marriage-vote.html?src=recg (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/religious-exemptions-were-key-to-new-york-gay-marriage-vote.html?src=recg)
Now, in no way am I attempting to put a damper on what is a great achievement for NY, for gay people and for America as a whole, as it is dragged, kicking and screeming into the modern world.
But I do find this sort of legalese somewhat disturbing. The rider, often irrelevant to the actual legislation, is, I understand often attached, simply to get a bill through. This sort of clause will allow legislators to enforce, otherwise unwise and even unconstitutional provisions, in law, simply for fear of losing something else.
Hopefully, there will be maximum use made of gay marriage, so that, at a later time, the exclusion provision can then be challenged, safe in the knowledge that legislators wouldn't dare repeal the substantive bill.
Frankly, that point can only come when gay marriage is seen as much part of fundamental rights as mixed race marriages are now.
Best of luck to all of you. And congratulations.
Don't forget the Bs who can now get married!
This sort of clause will allow legislators to enforce, otherwise unwise and even unconstitutional provisions, in law, simply for fear of losing something else.
I think its more of a double wammy. First legislators don't enforce anything the other two (separate yet equal, sort of) enforce law, the administration by using the police powers of the state (and a few others too) and the courts who rule on what they think the legislators might have thought they were talking about. The Leg (because they had NO choice, it wasn't going to pass without the religious exemption) tacked it in there, and in the course of American Law, they just gave the churches one huge exemption from having to do things they don't like. That can, and will find people arguing for application in things beyond gay marriage, so I think they wrote the killswitch into there just as much to keep the churches from suing about it. Though I'm sure they will. But Churches are now free to discriminate again people who don't agree with them, but they were doing that anyway, and I don't know of any sane people who really object to giving them the out.
gay marriage is seen as much part of fundamental rights as mixed race marriages are now
They will, and for the same reason, it's just taking a while to get there. What we need, is not fifty more marriage laws* (many rather poorly written), what we need is for the Supreme Court to ... eventually... uphold in one way or the other the ruling of the Ninth Circuit which found that not allowing gays to marry (just as not allowing mixed race couples to marry) is a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses. Now Federal Courts move show, they are designed to (actually the entire American system of government is designed to go real slow - the Constitution was written by people who really didn't like government, and making it slow as hell is one way to keep in in line). Where it stands now is that the losers have to argue that the judge was not just wrong once (and judges are loath to find other judges in error, particularly when this crap has already been plowed once on the issue of race), but twice. It's required for them to win both points if they want to stop gays from getting married again (again) {Remember, that when California allows gay to get married, it's going to be the THIRD time its happened}. Now, while the State of California was required to be part of the first trial (against it's will), it has no legal obligation to join the appeal, and they have declined. So the religious groups are going it alone. Because they are going it alone the appeals court has asked them, before anyone argues anything, to show standing (fancy word meaning that they have some sort of real and vested interest in the law. Which they don't. If they are not gay, it does not affect them at all. And that is due real soon. My guess is that may be enough to stop the appeal, at which point the Walker ruling stands, the stay is lifted, all sort of fabulous wedding start taking place again, and the religious groups will go to the Supremes, who may (but more likely may not) grant it certiorari and argue it there.**
* - Remember, New York is the first state to actually have this come from the Leg, as law, everywhere it was the result of court cases.
* -- I think the SC would rather wait for a case to come to them from New York, ie. a case about legislation, as opposed to one about Californians voting, because who knows what's that's about.
Is it really the first that came from legislation? I will say, the origins were through court cases in 2004, when the Mayor of New Paltz decided to give marriage licenses to same sex couples.
And in Cali it started when Gavin Newsom (mayor of SF) started using his authority (because the City is empowered to issues licences) to give them to gay and lesbian couples during the Winter of Love. Then the court told SF to stop, looked at the issue because people were suing and the SC of Cali said that Gavin was correct, and refusing to marry gay couples was a violation of due process. So it was legal again. So then the Prop 8 and illegal again. I'm sure in NH and Iowa it was done by courts. New York is the first state to have it's elected leaders show enough guts to do it.
Quote from: tekla on June 28, 2011, 06:18:36 PM
I'm sure in NH and Iowa it was done by courts. New York is the first state to have it's elected leaders show enough guts to do it.
NH passed civil unions, and then two years later, marriage equality. It was all done via the legislature, no courts. I know many of the people who were involved, they also tried unsuccessfully to pass fully inclusive anti discrimination laws, but NOM and others spent a lot of money portraying it as a bathroom bill.
Z
Quote from: Nygeel on June 25, 2011, 10:39:03 AM
I was at Stonewall when the bill passed...and was glitter bombed. I know that I probably should be happy and celebrating but I can't see myself doing that when GENDA which has been around longer than the marriage bill still hasn't come up for a vote in the senate and would give me protections when it comes to public amenities...and job discrimination.
This^^ !
I fully agree with you and I'm really nothing but happy for the LGB population but I may never really profit from the new law, and while gay people are busy tying the knot I'm still afraid to cross the 'borders' to like long island or whatever. It kind of gets me down knowing that GENDA is very likely to take the backstage and even if a lot of LGB people are supportive of it it's possible many of them will just forget about the T people who've been there all along. I hope it's not the case.
Maybe it's a 2 step forward 1 step back situation but I guess it's better than nothing. :-\
Tekla, very informative and enlightening. I can always count on you for that, thank you.
Jennifer
The clause that Spacial found--
"The amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not "result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation."
was, in my opinion, a tail protector for the legislators that will not in the long run cause any really deep problems with its actions. In the US, the separation of church and state issue is breached mildly at one point, because licensed clergy have one brief shot at being civil law officers. The marriage vows are a legally binding Oath of a state contract, and for half a second or what it takes the clergyman is a Notary Public or very temporary (you name it) officer of the state. After that oath takes place, its "we return to our regular programming" which is the purely religious ritual of blessing. A great many other countries actually have the "happy couple" take the oath at the local city hall, and then go over to the church for the local shaman to do his thing. There are enough churches who make a good dent in their rent payments through weddings, and there are going to be churches or wedding chapels that will want to cash in on it. The churches that will not solemnize gay marriages simply will not get the additional cash. Or another way, they can keep their principles, but they won't get the interest in cash. There will also be enough other businesses that will cash in too, so the recession in NY is over!!
Oh god girl, you can't imagine. When we've been allowed to have gay weddings in SF the fabulous index went up ten points overnight. Lavish stuff. It's a huge economic deal.