Nuances from last night's New York Marriage vote

The "Rev." State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.

I don't know how many people noticed it, but the "Rev." State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a pentacostalist minister who admits to having become "one flesh" with a second wife while his first wife is still alive, and admitted in an interview this week that it was wrong to do this, did his best last night to try to derail the well-organized procedure for the marriage vote in the State Senate.

It wasn't just the length of his comments, which went well over the stipulated two minutes. (To be sure, Senator Duane and others also exceeded two minutes in their own comments).  But in his halting English, he kept insisting that he was "laying aside the bill." He became agitated, and repeated several times that he was getting no respect, that he had said to "lay aside the bill."  He said he had a right to "lay aside the bill."

What Diaz did not seem to understand, was:

(a) he was recognized solely for the purpose of explaining his vote on the bill" - and

(b) that there had been a bit of ledgerdemain when the amendment and the bill were first taken up, that precluded Senator Diaz being able to lay the bill aside (i.e., put it off until later).

Last night's women's discussion group at my local LGBT center trooped into The LOFT's library rather than meet.  We were watching the internet livestream feed on a large monitor, hoping it wouldn't crash (it didn't), but wen the Assembly bills were first taken up, we noticed that they were being laid aside.  At first, some thought that meant that the bills were not going to get a vote, but without missing a beat, the president of the Senate continued with the repartee with majority leader skelos about there being a message from the governor at the desk, for each bill.

After having each been laid aside, the bills were then taken up on the basis of the governor's message of necessity - first the amendment, and then the main bill (the reverse of the order they had been taken up in the Assembly).

So, when Diaz tried to lay the bill aside, he couldn't, because the bills had already been laid aside once, and because he had not been recognized for the purpose of laying a bill aside but for explaining his vote.

It turns out that Diaz is as poor in his senate procedural rules as he is on interpreting the bible, or in his command of the English language.  As to the last, I hope he is more proficient in Spanish, even if I don't understand a word of it.

As to his feeling of not being respected, I am sure that he is going to repeat that - he was trying to use every trick he knew to keep the bill from being considered.

Then in the other things he said, he chastized the Republicans for not all marching in lock-step (something he, as a Democrat, has always had a hard time doing).  He complained that the Republicans were responsible for letting the bill go to a vote.

On that last point, I think is was not grounds for complaint, but for admiration, despite the fact that nearly all of them disapproved of the purpose of the bill.

As one of them pointed out, had they not let the bill go to a vote then, it would have come up in a couple of years, and when it came up again, it would not have all the "religious protections" they were able to build into it.

Before the final language came out yesterday, I was quite frankly worried that the poison pill provisions were going to be wayy more onorous than they were.  I grant that the in terrorem clause (the one that invalidates the whole law in the event one provision is set aside by a court) was way over the top, but not totally unexpected.

Essentially, on the issue of marriage, the proponents and opponents are so polarized, that no one on either side trusts the motivations of the "other side."  We are fond of demonizing each other. 

Diaz showed that he was possibly the only member of the Senate not willing to lay that aside in the chamber and move forward.

Unlike the advocates on both sides, like me, who operate outside the chamber, the senators have the responsibility of actually making the law, despite their sometimes almost insurmountable differences.

Some senators, mostly Democrats, were justly pushing for the extension of the connubium of marriage on a gender neutral basis.

Other Senators, mostly Republicans, were justly (and with the bill safely passed, I can state this) trying to protect their religious institutions from what they perceived as an assault that goes against their most deeply-held religious views.

Frankly, I do believe the Republican majority is well aware of the fact that 2012 may be the last time they have a majority in the near future, so they set out to get the best deal they could get, to protect the mostly religion-based interests of the opponents,knowing that in 2013, a democratic majority senate could pass marriage without all the bells and whistles that were written into this bill.

I don't really think the bells and whistles were wholly necessary, though I can understand the fears that led to their adoption.

While I really do see the concerns of the opponents to be rooted in bigotry and prejudice, I can admire the way a few of the Republicans were able to negotiate a deal with the Governor to work a way to get the bill passed in a way that could reasonably protect the religious prejudice without harming the legal rights of the proponents.  I also have to admire the willingness of  most of the 28 Republicans who voted no on the main bill, to allow it to go to a vote.  I only wish that they would have used the amendment that was voted on first, to signal who they were - that they were among the at least 17 in the majority conference that were needed to let the bill get the vote.

And that is the truth.  If there were not 17 members of the majority who understood that there were enough votes for the bill to pass, and were at least comfortable with, if not fully satisfied by the "religious protections" that had been negotiated (what I still tend to call a poison pill even though it did not turn out to be fatal"), there would have been no vote last night.

Last night's vote was the result of the democratic process at work - not a perfect bill for either side, but one that gave each the things that they needed the most.

A victory for "our side," and, though they may not want to admit it openly, a victory for "them," too.

Diaz, though, made it clear that he was not part of any solution, only part of the problem.

Like Archbishop Dolan, he will not acknowledge the victory that the opponents won on religious protections.

State Senator Greg Ball

Senator Greg Ball wanted more of a poison pill.  And to be honest, I don't know if he was willing to let it go to a vote as it was.  His principal role in the past couple of days was to signal to me that the poison pill provisions were not going to be fatal, when he announced his NO vote in advance. 

Senator Tom Duane, who in the moment of victory took the time to call for passage of GENDA next, was gracious - he chivalrously referred to all of his colleagues as heroes for their work in the process, even those who voted agaisnt the bill, even Diaz.

So, the marriage canary tells me that the only hope for GENDA next year would be if there is something the Republicans feel a need to do to protect some legitimate constituency of theirs.  Sadly, the way the opposition to GENDA is shaping up, I don't think there is anything that we can offer in compromise.  All we want is the same protection that has been provided to other minorities under the hate crimes and human rights laws.

The trans community has to organize and lead the charge for GENDA.  I am hopeful that we will not be forgotten by the marriage people, but many of them will be moving on to other states and to federal issues,  Some, however, will do everything they can to help us out - but we have to find a way to take the lead.

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.

Cassandra reads the tea leaves: NY Marriage bill may be a canary for GENDA strategy

The canary, a songbird species, was used as recently as 1987 in the coal mining industry to warn miners of the danger of toxic gas buildup.  It's not that the canaries were trained to sing out a warning, but rather, they would succumb to the toxic gases before human miners could - and the cessation of the chirping would also provide an audible indication that something could be amiss.

The three ring circus in the closing days of the 2011 New York legislative session, with controversy swirling around the extension of rent control, the imposition of a 2% cap on school tax increases, and the marriage "equality" bill, is providing advocates for GENDA (The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) a foretaste of what the scenario might be for the 2012 session, if GENDA were to be taken up by the Republican-controlled state senate.

There were two marriage bills considered by the Assembly, both of them chiefly sponsored by Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell, who, like his celebrity sister Rosie, is openly gay.

In this blog essay, I am going to set both of them out and analyze the evolution of the "poison pill" up to last week.

Hereis the original bill, A7600:

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

7600

2011-2012 Regular Sessions

I N ASSEMBLY

May 10, 2011

Introduced by M. of A. O'DONNELL -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary


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


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


Section 1. Legislative intent. Marriage is a fundamental human right. Same-sex couples and their children should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage. Stable family relationships help build a stronger society. For the welfare of the community and in fairness to all New Yorkers, this act formally recognizes otherwise-valid marriages without regard to whether the parties are of the same or different sex. It is the intent of the legislature that the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples be treated equally in all respects under the law. The omission from this act of changes to other provisions of law shall not be construed as a legislative intent to preserve any legal distinction between same-sex couples and different-sex couples with respect to marriage. The legislature intends that all provisions of law which utilize gender-specific terms in reference to the parties to a marriage, or which in any other way may be inconsistent with this act, be construed in a gender-neutral manner or in any way necessary to effectuate the intent of this act.


S 2. The domestic relations law is amended by adding a new section 10-a to read as follows:


S 10-A. SEX OF PARTIES. 1. A MARRIAGE THAT IS OTHERWISE VALID SHALL BE VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE ARE OF THE SAME OR DIFFERENT SEX.


2. NO GOVERNMENT TREATMENT OR LEGAL STATUS, EFFECT, RIGHT, BENEFIT, PRIVILEGE, PROTECTION OR RESPONSIBILITY RELATING TO MARRIAGE, WHETHER
DERIVING FROM STATUTE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR COURT RULE, PUBLIC POLICY, COMMON LAW OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF LAW, SHALL DIFFER BASED ON THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE BEING OR HAVING BEEN OF THE SAME SEX RATHER THAN A DIFFERENT SEX. WHEN NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPOUSES UNDER THE LAW, ALL GENDER-SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR TERMS SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN A GENDER-NEUTRAL MANNER IN ALL SUCH SOURCES OF LAW.


S 3. Section 13 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 720 of the laws of 1957, is amended to read as follows:


S 13. Marriage licenses. It shall be necessary for all persons intended to be married in New York state to obtain a marriage license from a town or city clerk in New York state and to deliver said license, within sixty days, to the clergyman or magistrate who is to officiate before the marriage ceremony may be performed. In case of a marriage contracted pursuant to subdivision four of section eleven of this chapter, such license shall be delivered to the judge of the court of record before whom the acknowledgment is to be taken. If either party to the marriage resides upon an island located not less than twenty-five miles from the office or residence of the town clerk of the town of which such island is a part, and if such office or residence is not on such island such license may be obtained from any justice of the peace residing on such island, and such justice, in respect to powers and duties relating to marriage licenses, shall be subject to the provisions of this article governing town clerks and shall file all statements or affidavits received by him while acting under the provisions of this section with the town clerk of such town. NO APPLICATION FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE SHALL BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES ARE OF THE SAME, OR A DIFFERENT, SEX.


S 4. Subdivision 1 of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 319 of the laws of 1959, is amended to read as follows:


1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhattan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx county, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union; PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN, MINISTER OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.


S 5. This act shall take effect immediately.


Now, let's take a look at the bill introduced by Assemblymember O'Donnell, at the request of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is reported to have had discussions with at least some Republican leaders before hammering out some "poison pill" language for the bill  I am going to enbolden the differences, or at least the ones I find:

 S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

8354

2011-2012 Regular Sessions

IN ASSEMBLY

June 14, 2011

Introduced by M. of A. O'DONNELL, GOTTFRIED, GLICK, TITONE, KELLNER, BRONSON, J. RIVERA, SILVER, FARRELL, SAYWARD, LENTOL, NOLAN, WEISEN BERG, ARROYO, BRENNAN, DINOWITZ, HOYT, LIFTON, MILLMAN, CAHILL, PAULIN, REILLY, BING, JEFFRIES, JAFFEE, ROSENTHAL, KAVANAGH, DenDEKKER, SCHIMEL, HEVESI, BENEDETTO, SCHROEDER, J. MILLER, LAVINE, LANCMAN, LINARES, MOYA, ROBERTS, SIMOTAS, ABINANTI, BRAUNSTEIN -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. AUBRY, BOYLAND, BROOK-KRASNY, CANESTRARI, COOK, DUPREY, ENGLEBRIGHT, LATIMER, V. LOPEZ, LUPARDO, MAGNARELLI, McENENY, MORELLE, ORTIZ, PRETLOW, RAMOS, N. RIVERA, P. RIVERA, RODRIGUEZ, RUSSELL, SWEENEY, THIELE, TITUS, WEPRIN, WRIGHT, ZEBROWSKI -- (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


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Marriage Equality Act".

My comment - The original bill didn't have a title, and a bill like this, even with the "poison pill" provisions we are going to review, really should not have a name with "Equality" in it - because the poison pills expressly allow discrimination.


S 2. Legislative intent. Marriage is a fundamental human right. Same sex couples

and their children 

My comment - I have no idea why on earth the Republicans insisted that the words "and their children" be stricken from the declaration of legislative intent.  It appears to me to be more than a mere oversight, and I think that the omission is an outrage.

should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage. Stable family relationships help build a stronger society. For the welfare of the community and in fairness to all New Yorkers, this act formally recognizes otherwise-valid marriages without regard to whether the parties are of the same or different sex. It is the intent of the legislature that the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples be treated equally in all respects under the law. The omission from this act of changes to other provisions of law shall not be construed as a legislative intent to preserve any legal distinction between same-sex couples and different-sex couples with respect to marriage. The legislature intends that all provisions of law which utilize gender-specific terms in reference to the parties to a marriage, or which in any other way may be inconsistent with this act, be construed in a gender-neutral manner or in any way necessary to effectuate the intent of this act.


S 3. The domestic relations law is amended by adding two new sections 10-a and 10-b to read as follows:


S 10-A. PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE. 1. A MARRIAGE THAT IS OTHERWISE VALID SHALL BE VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE ARE OF THE SAME OR DIFFERENT SEX.


2. NO GOVERNMENT TREATMENT OR LEGAL STATUS, EFFECT, RIGHT, BENEFIT, PRIVILEGE, PROTECTION OR RESPONSIBILITY RELATING TO MARRIAGE, WHETHER DERIVING FROM STATUTE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR COURT RULE, PUBLIC POLICY, COMMON LAW OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF LAW, SHALL DIFFER BASED ON THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE BEING OR HAVING BEEN OF THE SAME SEX RATHER THAN A DIFFERENT SEX. WHEN NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPOUSES UNDER THE LAW, ALL GENDER-SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR TERMS SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN A GENDER-NEUTRAL MANNER IN ALL SUCH SOURCES OF LAW.


S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, 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 RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.


2. A REFUSAL BY A BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION TEN-A OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT CREATE A CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION.

My comment – Sections 10-b 1 & 2 are not objectionable – all it means is that if the local Knights of Columbus, American Legion, Lions Club, etc., as well as the churches and schools, can arbitrarily deny the use of their halls or other facilities for weddings.  It doesn’t mean that they can deny a celebration for other purposes than a “solemnization or celebration of marriage” – so maybe one of the extras the GOP Senators might be looking for here would be additional rights to discriminate.

3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE 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 FROM LIMITING EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVING 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.

My comment - This Section 10-b.3., already in the Assembly version, should be a deal breaker unless there is a provision added that this does not apply to any of these entities or organizations if they receive any source of public funding, and I would also add “or exemption from taxation” – though I don’t think that would go over very well.  I am appalled because this piece of the bill goes beyond marriage rights - we are dealing with a broad range of things, and a broad range of entities.  This may well be intended to be a legislative overturning of the 2001 New York Court of Appeals decision in Levin v. Yeshiva University, 96 N.Y.2d 484, 730 N.Y.S.2d 15, in which the Court held that Yeshiva University's restriction of housing to those with legally recognized family relationships with a student violated the New York City Human Rights law provisions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  This provision, without the addition of a ban on public funding for entities that so discriminate, will be a rather legislative rollback of both the New York City human rights law and the New York State Human Rights law, as amended by the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in 2002 - I wonder whether the people and organizations supporting marriage equality right now understand that the poison pills already in the bill may well go too far?  Or are they so blinded by a single-minded desire to not have to take a drive or train trip to Connecticut to get married there and have the same full legal rights in New York as anyone else, with no poison pill? 

The thing is, the passage of the original bill without a specific addressing of the Yeshiva University case, would have been enough to overturn the specific facts of the case - since the unmarried lesbian couple would under the new law have the right to marry, the school's housing rule would no longer be violative of the human rights law because refusing accommodation an unmarried couple would not be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.  Of course, if they would in fact be legally married, then we'd be in the same situation of having the school run afoul of the human rights law.  So it should be an acceptable "poison pill" but only if the law provides the school may take no public money if it intends to discriminate.  If they do, the law should prohibit the discrimination.

.
S 4. Section 13 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 720 of the laws of 1957, is amended to read as follows:


S 13. Marriage licenses. It shall be necessary for all persons intended to be married in New York state to obtain a marriage license from a town or city clerk in New York state and to deliver said license, within sixty days, to the clergyman or magistrate who is to officiate before the marriage ceremony may be performed. In case of a marriage contracted pursuant to subdivision four of section eleven of this chapter, such license shall be delivered to the judge of the court of record before whom the acknowledgment is to be taken. If either party to the marriage resides upon an island located not less than twenty-five miles from the office or residence of the town clerk of the town of which such island is a part, and if such office or residence is not on such island such license may be obtained from any justice of the peace residing on such island, and such justice, in respect to powers and duties relating to marriage licenses, shall be subject to the provisions of this article governing town clerks and shall file all statements or affidavits received by him while acting under the provisions of this section with the town clerk of such town. NO APPLICATION FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE SHALL BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES ARE OF THE SAME, OR A DIFFERENT, SEX.


S 5. Subdivision 1 of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 319 of the laws of 1959, is amended and a new subdivision 1-a is added to read as follows:


1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhattan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx county, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union; PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.


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.


S 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.



My comment - the original bill was to take effect immediately.  I suspect that the idea of providing a 30 day window would be to allow opponents of connubial marriage rights being legally permitted on a gender-neutral basis, an opportunity to take their case to the courts to try to block the bill from becoming effective.

Now, as I am writing this, the GOP senators should be meeting as a majority conference, and it is possible that the fate of the marriage bill is in their hands.  We will not get a chance to see the final draft of the bill as they amend it to add more "poison pill" provisions


   
Further negotiations have been had between the Governor and Senators Andrew J. Lanza from Staten Island, Kemp Hannon from Long Island, and Steven Saland from Dutchess County, who have been pressing to enlarge the "poison pill" aspects beyond those already added to the Assembly bill.  In addition, there have been the "three men in a room" meetings among Governor Cuomo, Senate majority leader Dean Skelos, and Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, that have, or may have, touched on the addition of additional poison pill language that would make the marriage bill less one of "equality" and more one of a second class status.  Perhaps the opponents have decided that we are the kind of fools who are willing to take a legal right under the same name but with a different outcome.

If what the Albany legislative meat grinder does to the marriage bill results in an enactment of a bill with the objectionable provisions already noted, as well as others, what would the GOP-controlled senate do to GENDA, assuming that the Republicans were to decide to take it up today, or in 2012?

Well, the marriage tale has not yet been fully spun out - but when I analyze the final result, I am sure it will be a cautionary tale, a canary that will have succumbed to the poisonous vapors exhaled by the members of the Republican majority that controls the New York State Senate.

The worse the marriage poison pill, the less likely it will be that the friends and advocates of GENDA will be able to avoid a similar fate in 2012.

If the marriage bill does in fact turn out to be a dead canary, I would suggest that the 2012 legislative strategy for GENDA, with a Republican controlled state senate, should be to expend enough effort to pass the Assembly the fifth time, but to concentrate the trans community's meager assets on influencing the outcome of the 2012 elections.

We will have an advantage - the 2010 census results are likely to create enough additional Democratic seats ao that even with the GOP drawing the lines, there should be at least 35 Democratic senators taking office in January 2013.  We will not have to swallow a poison pill in 2012 for GENDA, we just have to make sure that those 35 Democrats (with the exception of Ruben Diaz Sr., who appears to be a lost cause) are all going to support GENDA the way it was written. 

I have been posting and tweeting about the marriage bill poison pill for the past several days.  The juggernaut is in the hands of the GOP Senate majority - I do not want to give them GENDA to add the same sort of poison.

Audio file of WCBS 880's Peter Haskell reporting "vast majority" in Senator Lanza's district supports marriage equality

WCBS 880′s Peter Haskell In St. Sen. Andrew Lanza’s District In Castleton Corners, Staten Island





If the button does not work, you can find the link here, part way down the page:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/21/lawmakers-return-to-albany-to-tackle-gay-marriage-rent-control/

While Senator Lanza is best known for changing his vote (because he was threatened, or rather, strongly urged by Senator Ruben Diaz to change his vote) at the Judiciary committee meeting last year that killed GENDA for the last session, it is possible that he might vote for marriage if he hears enough from his constituents

Here is his Contact Information:

Albany Office:
State Senator Andrew J. Lanza
188 State Street Room 915
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

--
Phone: (518) 455-3215
Fax: (518) 426-6852

District Office:

State Senator Andrew J. Lanza
3845 Richmond Ave. Suite 2A
Staten Island, NY 10312

--
Phone: (718) 984-4073
Fax: (718) 984-4455



E-Mail:
 lanza@senate.state.ny.us

Here is what I tried to fax and ended up e-mailing:

June 22, 2011


By FAX to 518-426-6852

Hon. State Senator Anthony J. Lanza
188 State Street - Room 915
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

Re: WCBS Newsradio 880 reports “Vast Majority” of Staten Islanders support Marriage Equality

Dear Senator Lanza:

A broadcast yesterday from Castleton Corners by Newsradio 880 reporter Peter Haskell indicated that the vast majority of your constituents support extending the right to marry on a gender neutral basis.

Your YES vote on this bill will be critical.

Please vote YES for marriage Equality, and NO to any poison pill. Religious institutions already can choose whose marriages they will bless, and that right will not change by extending the connubium of marriage on a gender neutral basis.

This is the last part of the Domestic Relations Law that has not been already made gender neutral.

Please vote YES on the Marriage bill, and tell Majority Leader Skelos that you don’t want to add a poison pill to the bill

Do the right thing!

Thanks,


Joann Prinzivalli