The latest draft of the amendments to the Assembly bill - PASSES!

The canary is not dead, just a little sick:

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

8520

2011-2012 Regular Sessions

I N ASSEMBLY

June 24, 2011

Introduced by M. of A. O'DONNELL -- (at request of the Governor) -- read


once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary


AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability


to marry; and to amend 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, in relation to the statutory


construction of such chapter; and repealing certain provisions of the


domestic relations law relating to parties to a marriage


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM


BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:






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8354, is REPEALED and a new section 10-b is added to read as follows: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 OTHER PROVISION OF 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 INCORPORATED 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, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE  SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR RELATED TO THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.  2. A ANY SUCH REFUSAL BY A BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION TEN-A OF THIS ARTICLE 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 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, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.






2. 3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW,  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGULATION, 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 SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT  ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT FROM LIMITING   EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED 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 CLERGYMAN 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.




The bottom line?  It's really not a lot worse than it was before - and to boot, all it really does is extend to marriage a number of the religious exemptions that were included in SONDA, just with a lot more teeth to make sure there are no challenges.

The in terrorem clause, threatening to invalidate the whole law if any part of it is successfully challenged, is a particularly interesting touch - it might have been added at the suggestion of a GOP senator with a trusts and estates practice, familiar with the value of simmilar in terrorem clauses in the drafting of wills.

While I might feel a little queasy that the Republicans felt necessary to throw all this in, I think that if and when this passes in both Assembly (and perhaps a single bill incorporating all the changes in the Senate), it should be time for a minor and muted celebration.  They're not doing anything with GENDA.

But if they do want similar "religious protections" in GENDA, I guess I will have to take a close look at them - as long as they apply acoss the board, as these seem to, then it should be fine.

So, if a religion does not want to perform interracial marriages or the local Masonic Lodge does not want to allow an interracial couple to have their wedding reception at their hall, this bill will protect the Masons, and not a thing can be done about that.

UPDATE: The amendment passed in the Assembly first, and then the Senate first passed the Amendment, and then the underying bill.  ha maon bill passed 33-29 - with one vote more than the 32 needed for passage.  Upstate Senatr Grisanti was vite #33 - and his explanation of his vote was nearly as well received at The LOFT as Senator Duane's emotional and stirring words.

I cannot help but be pleased that marriage has passed - it's as close to equality as one could reasonably expect, given the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. 

In the final analysis, the opponents got what they really felt they needed - keeping weddings that don't want out of their churches and affiliated organization reception halls - and the proponents got the word maddiage and civil equality, at least  outside those churches and affiliated organizations.

Cuomo a strong second to Hawkins in NY Gov. Debate

Last night, Trudy and I had the opportunity to attend the seven-way New York gubernatorial debate, which took place at Hofstra University in Long Island. Getting there was an adventure – Trudy drove down to my office in Manhattan, turned the steering wheel over to me, and we did manage to make it to the arena on time, despite the horrific traffic on the Long Island Expressway (which truly earns its sobriquet of “the world’s biggest parking lot”).

Attending the debate in person was a different experience than watching it on television, though there were several huge screens allowing us to see the candidates close up.

Trudy and I had excellent seats near the middle, in the sixth row. We saw our local district attorney, Janet DiFiore, in attendance, and Karen, a friend from church, who was there with the League of Women Voters.

It was interesting to see how the hosts, Hofstra University, together with Cablevision’s News 12 and Long Island’s Newsday newspaper, managed to fill in the floor seats of those invitees who couldn’t get there on time. There were a few hundred extras, invited by the University, seated in the stadium seating to the rear, who were poised to fill in, which explains why all the invitees had to be in our seats well before the debate began.

Cell phones not only had to be silent, they had to be completely off, though I bet that I could have gotten away with “airplane mode,” since the reason announced was that cell signals could interfere with some of the equipment. I did not, however, chance testing that hypothesis.

While we were supposed to sit quietly through the debate, there were instances during which some of the crowd erupted in impermissible applause. I did not succumb to the temptation, even though I do have a habit of muttering at the television when watching similar events from the comfort of my home.

It seems like the mainstream media take on the debate was to ignore the minor party candidates, except to the extent that they could add some “color” (and I don’t mean race) to the proceedings. Charles Barron, Kristen Davis, and to a lesser extent Warren Redlich, all managed to provide some sound bites for a media that ignores the rest of their message. Jimmy McMillan was a one-man comic relief. Sadly, one of the best candidates in the crowd, who stayed on message the whole night, the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins, did not get much of a mention at all from the MSM.

Here’s my scoring: Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate, got an “uptick” on my scoresheet on every response segment, making him the clear winner of last night’s New York gubernatorial debate, with a grade of 12 out of 12. If the debate was the only factor in my voting decision, Mr. Hawkins would be my choice for Governor. It’s actually too bad that the media is not paying him any attention.

Andrew Cuomo, clearly trying to stay calm and not make any mistakes, managed to make it to 2nd in my scoring, with 7-1/2 out of 12 upticks, while only managing two downticks – one of which was for his limited support of hydrofracking. Still, when I take his debate score, and give him extra credit for his experience and proven ability, he’s still going to get my vote.

In a strong third, Eliot Spitzer’s former madam, Kristen Davis, made a strong showing with 6 out of 12 upticks and only two downticks. It’s clear that if something happened to both Andrew and Howie between now and election day, she’d actually get my vote.

Charles Barron, the one-dimensional Freedom Party candidate, managed 3/12 upticks, and only 4 downticks. I was most disappointed with his inability to perceive that there are other disadvantaged minorities out there. His good points are outweighed by his negatives, particularly his purported “neutrality” on marriage equality (“the Freedom Party does not have a position” on that issue, indeed). None of us are truly free until we are all free -

Carl Paladino managed 1-1/2 upticks, and, while that’s technically a tie for last on upticks alone, he did have fewer absolute downticks (4) than the last two. Carl gets a special mention (and an entire uptick!) for his head-shaking gesture, followed by a pause and the query, “Is this a rebuttal?” in response to a scurrilous attack by the whiny libertarian, whose apparent aim, aside from whining (did I mention he was really whiny?) was to shill for the Republican congressional down-ticket, as if he has them on his own coattails.

The rather strange gentleman with the interesting beard, Jimmy McMillan, sitting between Carl Paladino and Andrew Cuomo, with his rambling, punctuated by his “the rent is too damn high” message, still managed to get 1-1/2 upticks (the full tick being for his closing statement, and the half for being in favor of marriage equality (the lost half-tick on that came from his apparent willingness to let a fetishist marry a shoe). Every time he spoke, I listened in almost rapt horror, as a torrent of disconnected verbiage washed over me.

The libertarian whiner, Warren Redlich, somehow managed to get 1-1/2 upticks with 5 downticks. His single strongest point had to do with capping bureaucratic pay. Though technically tied for last with Carl Paladino and Jimmy McMillan, it appears from my scoresheet analysis that he did, in fact, come in dead last when I factor in the downticks. Perhaps there is a place for him at “Cheers;” there really isn’t any place for him in government. I’m most disappointed, because my own political philosophy is what I might call lowercase, or “small-l”(that’s “ell”) libertarian. Big-L Libertarians like this gentleman seem to crawl out from under rocks to bay at the moon.

The bottom line? Despite Howie Hawkins’ strong showing, the biggest news seems to be that neither Andrew Cuomo nor Carl Paladino did themselves any real harm. I grant Carl scores low with me, primarily because I disagree with him on so much. But for those who agree with him, he did not shoot himself in the foot. It may be that he learned something from his Yehuda Levin experience.