# What is going on with the SSM bill in the New York Senate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622 "2011-06-23T22:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/1 "2011-06-23T22:27:00Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/2 "2011-06-23T22:30:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/3 "2011-06-23T23:02:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/4 "2011-06-23T23:07:37Z")
City Room [reports](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/state-senate-g-o-p-near-decision-on-gay-marriage-vote/?hp) that the Republican conference will meet today to discuss the issue. > [@](#): > > The State Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Thursday morning that his Republican caucus would meet during the day to discuss the issue of gay marriage. The meeting would be the first time the caucus has fully discussed the issue this week. > > “This will be decided by the conference, when they’re going to bring it out,” Mr. Skelos said of the marriage legislation. “I expect it will be a lengthy conference, a thoughtful conference.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/5 "2011-06-23T23:10:49Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/6 "2011-06-23T23:15:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/7 "2011-06-23T23:18:49Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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 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.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/8 "2011-06-23T23:24:23Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/9 "2011-06-24T14:05:51Z")
I have been meaning to start a thread on this for several days now. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > 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. Can someone explain to me what the current wording of these protections is, and why some people think that they’re not strong enough? ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/10 "2011-06-24T14:23:46Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/11 "2011-06-24T14:31:44Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > 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? 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](http://governor.ny.gov/press/06142011MarriageEqualityAct) ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/12 "2011-06-24T14:39:19Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#): > > Aren’t businesses prevented from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference? 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](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. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/13 "2011-06-24T15:08:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/14 "2011-06-24T16:27:13Z")
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] ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/15 "2011-06-24T18:26:18Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/16 "2011-06-24T18:31:04Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > 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] Your first premise is untrue: > [@365gay.com](#): > > Skelos worries a federal judge could strike down flimsy religious protections in the current proposal if a religious group, such as the Knights of Columbus, is sued for discrimination for refusing to provide its hall for a gay wedding. He wants protections that will allow a religious group to observe its principles without conflicting with a gay marriage law. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/17 "2011-06-25T00:32:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/18 "2011-06-25T00:59:27Z")
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](http://www.livestream.com/nysenate?utm_source=lsplayer&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=footerlinks) ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/19 "2011-06-25T01:06:13Z")
The religious exemptions language is as follows (from [here](http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011)): > [@](#): > > Section 1. > > Section 10-b of the domestic relations law, as added by a > chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations law relat > ing to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill number A. > 8354, is REPEALED and a new section 10-b is added to read as follows: > > S 10-B. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR > MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO > THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR > SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPO > RATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT > ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A > NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A > RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, > OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVO > LENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDI > VISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, > ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR > CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. ANY SUCH REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOM > MODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES SHALL NOT CREATE > ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL > GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE > AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT > EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets > is old law to be omitted. > LBD12066-08-1 > > ``` > A. 8520 2 > > ``` > > CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPO > RATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED > BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR > A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION. > 2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU > LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN > THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION > ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY > RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN > IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER > ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS > ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO > DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI > GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH > ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB > LISHED OR MAINTAINED. > 3. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE > PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS > UNDER SECTION THREE OF ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF > NEW YORK. > > S 2. Subdivision 1-a of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as > added by a chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations > law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill > number A.8354, is amended to read as follows: > > 1-a. A refusal by a clergyman or minister as defined in section two of > the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader to > solemnize any marriage under this subdivision shall not create a civil > claim or cause of action OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT > ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH CLER > GYMAN OR MINISTER. > > S 3. A chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations > law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill > number A. 8354, is amended by adding a new section 5-a to read as > follows: > > S 5-A. THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE > TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER. IF ANY PART OF THIS ACT SHALL BE > ADJUDGED BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE > REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE > CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE PARTIES’ RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER. > > S 4. This act shall take effect on the same date as such chapter of > the laws of 2011, takes effect. Of course, assuming the Assembly agrees to the same language. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/20 "2011-06-25T01:40:04Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > …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… 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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622.md?page=2)