This may quickly devolve into GD, but I thought that last Friday was the showdown vote and that Monday ended the session. It seems that the Senate leadership is still meeting with Cuomo and drafting religious exemptions. What is the holdup? Are they twisting that one GOP Senator from Staten Island’s arm so hard it breaks?
If they make changes, doesn’t it then have to go back to the Assembly who might not like the changes and say to hell with the whole thing?
Yes, it would have to go back to the Assembly assuming it passes the Senate. But the Assembly is in favor of SSM by a fairly wide margin and would probably pass it.
The hold up seems to be protections for businesses like caterers who might not want to be involved in SSM ceremonies; they want to law to protect them from lawsuits. Clergymen also want to be able to refuse to perform the ceremonies. There are protections built into the law, but some want them strengthened.
If the Senate can come up with wording to address these concerns, the Assembly will probably accept it.
City Room reports that the Republican conference will meet today to discuss the issue.
But is it true that it is down to ONE vote? I’m guessing that with all of the horsetrading his problem is with the legal aspects of people who don’t want to participate in SSM marriages like preachers and caterers.
But, I can’t imagine under the current scheme a minister of a Baptist church getting fined for refusing to participate in a SSM ceremony. Is it an excuse for him to oppose the bill? Against, GQ
It’s basically down to one vote, yes. 29 of 30 Democrats have come out (heh) in favor, and two of 32 Republicans. A majority in the Senate is 32, so one more vote and they can pass it.
Most of the Republicans are immovable on the issue, but one or two have said they are open-minded about it. Their concerns about the bill will be the focus of today’s discussions.
Into IMHO territory, but I really think this is an issue primarily invented to allow a few liberal Republicans to vote in favor of the measure while saving face. “I don’t really like gay marriage, but it seems like people want it, so I just want to make sure you can’t sue the Catholic archdiocese for refusing to marry two dudes.” (Not that that would have ever been a genuine issue.)
Is Majority Leader Skelos one of the two Republicans that might be swayed? If not, he could just refuse to bring it to a vote, or does the NYS Senate not work that way?
I have been meaning to start a thread on this for several days now.
Can someone explain to me what the current wording of these protections is, and why some people think that they’re not strong enough?
Aren’t businesses prevented from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference?
I’m having a hard time figuring out the Senate bill number to read the text directly, but the Governor’s press release of June 14, 2011 paraphrases the contents:
http://governor.ny.gov/press/06142011MarriageEqualityAct
Yes, sexual orientation is a protected class under the New York State Human Rights Law.
http://www.dhr.state.ny.us/law_and_regulations_unlawful_discriminatory.html
So ordinarily, it would illegal for a public accomodation, like a restaurant or a reception hall or a caterer, to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
What else is happening with the SSM bill is that if you live in one of the districts of a fence-sitting State Senator, you get robocalled and pushpolled EVERY DAMN DAY by “Defense of Marriage” bigots.
I know that wasn’t exactly appropriate for GQ, but I had to get it off my chest.
I’ll clarify my question: The reports in the press say nothing about caterers or other businesses; they’re talking about the clergymen who don’t want to perform the ceremonies. And my question is twofold:[ul]
[li]Don’t the “you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual preference” laws already have an exemption for situation which go against a clergyman’s religion?[/li][li]If not, then how hard is it to put such an exemption into this law? I know that the writing of a law can get very complicated and arcane, which is exactly why I’d like to see the various wordings that they are debating.[/li][/ul]
While I’m not sure this rises to the level of a Great Debate, it certainly can’t be left in General Questions with all the opinions being offered. Moved to Great Debates.
samclem Moderator
Your first premise is untrue:
That’s (a) a report, in (b) the press, which (c) talks not about clergy but about a reception hall and whether the owners thereof would be required to rent to gay couples.
Disclosure: I am a member of the Knights of Columbus, although speaking here only on my own behalf and not for them or any other organization.
Skelos is not one of the people on the fence. In fact, he’s come pretty solidly down against gay marriage, and while he could refuse to bring it to a vote, it doesn’t look like he will. Rumor says that the Republican Conference (which met for about 7 hours today) agreed to bring it to a vote tonight, along with the other big issues that are still outstanding (Property tax cap, mandate relief, rent control, SUNY funding, and a health exchange). But we’ll see if that happens.
One of the things complicating this has been that the state Conservative Party has announced that they won’t endorse anyone who votes for the bill, and it’s very hard to get elected as a Republican in New York without Conservative Party endorsement. But, in spite of that, the word going around is that there are enough votes to pass gay marriage, and that the opponents in the senate have reconciled themselves to it.
The bill has already passed the Assembly, with a vote of 85-60.
It’s supposedly coming up for a vote tonight. The Senate is in a 15 minute recess at the moment, but you can catch the live stream here -> http://www.livestream.com/nysenate?utm_source=lsplayer&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=footerlinks
The religious exemptions language is as follows (from here):
Of course, assuming the Assembly agrees to the same language.
If a senator simply votes “Present” (or doesn’t show up for the final vote at all) what happens? There are 64 senators, and 31 confirmed votes in favor. If at least one more Republican votes in favour and another doesn’t vote (or 2 don’t vote) then vote will be tied 31-31 or 32-32 and the Lieutenant Governor (as President of the Senate) casts the deciding vote (presumably Mr Duffy will vote in favor). Is what I just typed correct?