Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Assemblyman O’Donnell: Agreement reached on NY marriage religious language

Don't Ask Don't Tell

By Adam Bink

Nicholas Confessore at the NYTimes reports:

ALBANY– The Cuomo administration and legislative leaders have reached agreement on language that would protect religious institutions from obligations to recognize same-sex marriage, two people involved in the negotiations said on Friday afternoon, potentially paving the way for a vote on the marriage legislation.

Senate Republicans were still discussing the marriage bill among themselves in a close door meeting on Thursday afternoon. And it remained unclear whether — and even if — they would permit a vote on the broader legislation. Assembly lawmakers, which approved an earlier version of the same-sex marriage bill last week, would need to approve the new language in a new vote before the full bill could become law.

Emerging from a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat who is sponsor of the gay marriage bill in the assembly, said that there was an “agreement in principle” on the new language. He predicted the new language would be adopted on Friday.

Gay-rights advocates were hopeful that the same-sex marriage bill, which had been approved by the State Assembly and supported by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, would win passage before lawmakers ended their annual session.

As of Friday morning, the number of senators who had voiced support for the marriage measure — 31 out of 62, one short of a majority — had not changed in over a week. And negotiations over protections for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage had yielded no final agreement between Republicans and Mr. Cuomo, raising the prospect that the Legislature could adjourn without addressing the politically freighted legislation.

Most Republican senators say they strongly oppose the measure on religious or moral grounds. Still others are worried that it would provoke a spate of primary challenges — or low turnout among conservatives — next year, when Republicans will be battling to retain their one-vote Senate majority in newly redrawn legislative districts that could prove less hospitable to long-serving incumbents.

The question is whether Republicans themselves come forward to say they are comfortable with the language and whether they’ll bring up the bill.

118 Comments

  • 1. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    § Hooray for having a new thread! And GO NY!

  • 2. Kevin  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Me too!

  • 3. Kevin  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Just got a copy of the revised bill from a friend in Albany. All rumors point toward passage tonight.

  • 4. Billy  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Waiting and watching in Tennessee. Do the right thing NY Senate – bring it to a vote and approve it!

  • 5. Andrew_SEA  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    YES ! Go NY!

  • 6. Balu  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Will they vote? They better do. My parents dont want me to be gay because they think I will not have a life partner. They say "everybody needs a spouse, who can be the witness to the value of your life". If marriage equality is achieved in NY, it not only affects NY but will also give hope to my parents in India. The local news paper from a small Indian state will talk about this, because it is happening in NEW YORK, the greatest city/state in the world.

    So senators from NY, vote already.

  • 7. LCH  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Getting so nervous. Heartbeat racing every time a new comment or post appears. Switched to decaf coffee and may have to switch to sherry soon.

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 8. Warner  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Has the senete even been in session yet today. every time I check, the live video feed says we are in standing, and nothing is happening but bad music in the background.

    Here is hoping tonight brian brown is taken away from his harddrive of secret gay porn to cry that he lost his self-hating battle.

  • 9. Wren  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Anyone out there know how to find a link to the revised bill? I'd love to see it!!!

  • 10. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Adding energy and love to positive outcome today! thx to all for efforts especially anony! Love, gregory

  • 11. RAJ  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Can you tell how it differs from the Assembly version?
    http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&amp

  • 12. Bob  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    can you share copy of revised bill,,,,, with us,,,,,,,,

  • 13. Guest  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    No more excuses (even fake ones). Have the courage to be on the right side of history. There is a deficiency of rights in New York State. Pass the bill to fix it.

  • 14. seth from maryland  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    dont know , but if you look at the New Hampshire marriage equality bill you most likely will get the idea

  • 15. Guest  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    geez, that's tragic on multiple levels.

  • 16. Randy  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Positive Hope from Philadelphia, Hope this passes tonight!

  • 17. Bryce  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Here it is http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2

  • 18. Kevin  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Notwithstanding any state, local or
    6 municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to
    7 the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or
    8 section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorpo-
    9 rated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent
    10 orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-
    11 profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious
    12 corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or super-
    13 vised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent
    14 order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision,
    15 shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages,
    16 facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of
    17 a marriage. Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advan-
    18 tages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim
    19 or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to
    20 penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious
    21 corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated,

    EXPLANATION–Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
    [ ] is old law to be omitted.
    LBD12066-08-1

    A. 8520 2

    1 supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee
    2 thereof being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with
    3 a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corpo-
    4 ration.
    5 2. Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law or rule, regu-
    6 lation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, nothing in
    7 this article shall limit or diminish the right, pursuant to subdivision
    8 eleven of section two hundred ninety-six of the executive law, of any
    9 religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organ-
    10 ization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is oper-
    11 ated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious
    12 organization, to limit employment or sales or rental of housing accommo-
    13 dations or admission to or give preference to persons of the same reli-
    14 gion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such
    15 organization to promote the religious principles for which it is estab-
    16 lished or maintained.
    17 3. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to limit the
    18 protections and exemptions otherwise provided to religious organizations
    19 under section three of article one of the constitution of the state of
    20 New York.
    21 § 2. Subdivision 1-a of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as
    22 added by a chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations
    23 law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill
    24 number A.8354, is amended to read as follows:
    25 1-a. A refusal by a clergyman or minister as defined in section two of
    26 the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader to
    27 solemnize any marriage under this subdivision shall not create a civil
    28 claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government
    29 action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against such cler-
    30 gyman or minister.
    31 § 3. A chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations
    32 law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill
    33 number A. 8354, is amended by adding a new section 5-a to read as
    34 follows:
    35 § 5-a. This act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of it are
    36 to be read and construed together. If any part of this act shall be
    37 adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
    38 remainder of this act shall be invalidated. Nothing herein shall be
    39 construed to affect the parties' right to appeal the matter.
    40 § 4. This act shall take effect on the same date as such chapter of
    41 the laws of 2011, takes effect.

  • 19. Chris  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Via Capital Tonight:

    CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    #gaymarriage religious exemptions amendment language here. (Looking for a prettier version). tinyurl.com/6zx3jmt

  • 20. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    I don't like §5-a at all.

    And this part is very, very vague and somewhat troubling:

    taking such action as is calculated by such
    15 organization to promote the religious principles for which it is estab-
    16 lished or maintained.

  • 21. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    just got this off twitter

    http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2
    sorry i dont know how to do live link- someone step in here please!!
    Julie Bolcer on twitter has this link

  • 22. DazedWheels  |  June 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    AFER just tweeted a link to it, and they say they're looking for a cleaner copy.h

  • 23. Jon  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    History. History!

  • 24. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    i just read it. Unless i am missing something- its a standard exemption for clergy who don't wish to perform marriages in church. Huh? this cannot be it.

  • 25. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    its not here it is http://www.scribd.com/doc/58656571/ssmamendment

  • 26. DazedWheels  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    That's a bad, bad section. If we can't have what we want, then the equality is gone. What a crock of crap! Is that even legal-ish?

  • 27. Balu  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Me too. So if someone discriminates against same sex couple, the couple go to court based on this law and wins, then the rest of the law (and thus their marriage) is void? Is that what it means?

  • 28. Kevin  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    "Accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, etc." — not just clergy

  • 29. jpmassar  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Basically, any kind of non-profit associated with a religion can discriminate at will. That is the price for marriage equality in NY.

  • 30. seth from maryland  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    i dont like that ethier, do you think that can struck down by the courts?

  • 31. DazedWheels  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    And, Ann, excellent eye to catch that so quickly! Haven't told you lately, but you ROCK!! :-)

  • 32. aquaCA  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    I hope the equality bill passes today. I'm in the mood of celebrating (after work of course)! Unfortunately, I'm not able to make it to the Pride parade in SF this weekend, but it would be fantastic to have this victory to rejoice. However it's shameful that in order to be granted equal rights we have to make concessions to the religious zealots. Oh well, whatever it takes for now.

  • 33. Balu  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    A reader catches this astonishing line in big ugly: "Expires Jan 1, 2015 or upon the departure of the 56th governor, whichever comes first." Will this be one more reason to delay voting on SSM bill?

  • 34. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    May well be legal. It's called a non-severability clause. A tweet I saw prompted me to look for it. So — no exemption, no marriage, is I guess what that means.

  • 35. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    New Yorkers United For Marriage endorses the religious exemption language. So either its not as bad as we think OR they dont want to derail the train right now.

  • 36. jpmassar  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Plus, people are saying that it includes a clause saying that if any part of the law is successfully challenged, the entire law would be declared null and void

  • 37. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    If a judge throws out a part of the law, yes.

  • 38. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    I'm finding that part very troubling.

  • 39. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    No. They included a ridiculous clause that says that if one part of the law is found invalid, the rest is automagically invalid too. I wonder how that is even legal

  • 40. DazedWheels  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Looks like they're into major-league hedging with that included. I wonder if such a clause has ever been invalidated, in NY case-law, in equal protection or due process matters? Not expecting you to know NY case law. :-)

  • 41. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    The clause allowing church-owned schools and universities to discriminate against their employees is troubling too. They aren't told what to teach, but they should treat their personnel equally and follow the law in that regard

  • 42. Billy  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    I wouldn’t flip out too much about the religious exemptions, from I am reading. The language is dense, but in essence all it is basically saying is that the rights granted to religious organizations under other laws cannot be diminished because of this law.

    It sounds on paper worse than it is in practice.

  • 43. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Via @freedomtomarry freedomtomarry
    Amended language strikes an appropriate balance that allows all loving, committed couples to marry while preserving religious freedom #NY4M

  • 44. seth from maryland  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    as much as i dont like that part, i hope it passes and maybie later it can be changed a little bit

  • 45. Waxr  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I'm unhappy with the wording too, however the flaws can be corrected over time once same sex marriage is more accepted.

  • 46. mr. gay  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    4 bills left up for a vote before they will vote on gay marriage bill….. could be a late night according to cnn

  • 47. Ғĕłỹҳ  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Wow! Did they really need an extra week just to come up with this?…! So much additional verbiage that basically doesn't really add any further protections that were not already available.

    The power of irrational fear is truly amazing!

  • 48. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Good question. It's like a poison pill — challenge the exemption part of the law, risk losing marriage.

  • 49. davep  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    I would love to know what groups like AFER are saying about it. If anyone spots a link please post it!

  • 50. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    may not take that long- if the bills are 'noncontroversial' i watched them vote on some of of those type and they move them along quickly.

    marriage equality will be 'controversial' to say the least

  • 51. Bryce  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    I am more worried about whether or not it will come to a vote at all. Any word on that?

  • 52. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    They don't want to have to provide housing to same-sex married couples if they provide it for opposite couples. But the language is much broader than that.

  • 53. Billy  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    I am a little surprised by the language that says if you challenge part of this and win, the rest of the law also vaporizes. I am a government lawyer and do not believe I have ever seen such language in a bill or statute. Reminds me of an ‘ad damnum’ clause in a will.

    I’m a little skeptical that a court would uphold that, but have never had reason to look into it.

  • 54. davep  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Dang it. I would love to get out of the office a little early and head into SF to meet up with friends and start enjoying the beginning of th SF Gay Pride weekend. But I don't want to be out of touch with P8TT tonight!!!

  • 55. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @AFER AmericanEqualRights
    RT @prideagenda: Amendment strikes good balance: allowing gay couples to marry& preserving religious freedom #ny4m

    ETA: I guess it's only a retweet, but I'll see if there's more.

  • 56. LCH  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Would this apply to church-owned schools and universities that take federal money? This already exists here in CA. My niece went to a christian university that does not allow gay faculty or non-christian faculty. The explanation being that its private so they do whatever they darn well please. My point is that these discriminatory policies already exists, just not brought to light.

  • 57. Waxr  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    And to think that this language was added partly to satisfy Senator Ball, who has decided to vote against it anyway.

  • 58. Chris  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Just what it says. If a court strikes down the religious exemptions, than gay marriage is invalidated too.

  • 59. Carpool_Cookie  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    << Was that meant to warn against any possible future abuse? >>

    That would be my impression.

    People, if your spouse (or anyone!) holds a knife to your throat and threatens to kill you, um, please agree to testify. I mean, even if you don't care about your own safety, this person may go on to another spouse some day, and…

  • 60. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Probably. I think that might go out the window if they get state or federal funding, but I'm not sure. You'd think they couldn't take tax money and use it to discriminate.

    Maybe they're completely privately funded, but that's unusual.

  • 61. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Which wouldn't even be such a problem if religion didn't have its dirty tentacles in so many aspects of public life.

    "religious corporations". Yeah right. Of course all churches are ultimately just for-profit businesses, but that whole phrase is ridiculous.

  • 62. Billy  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    “Would this apply to church-owned schools and universities? This already exists here in CA. My niece went to a christian university that does not allow gay faculty or non-christian faculty. The explanation being that its private so they do whatever they darn well please. My point is that these discriminatory policies already exists, just not brought to light.”

    Yeah, that’s basically the point of the language – it spells out what in many cases is already true anyway. The righty wackos just want to be sure that since we homos would now be able to marry, that doesn’t change.

  • 63. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    He was just playing everyone, it seems. The asshat.

  • 64. DazedWheels  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    AFER just tweeted that this amendment stikes a good balance. My question? Did these same caveats/restrictions apply to anti-miscegenation laws?

  • 65. seth from maryland  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    it means if any of this law goes down by courts marriage equality goes bye- bye,

  • 66. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    If there was abuse, there's a possiblity of the classic situation, cops are called, abusee doesn't want to testify, case dies. Rinse and repeat. One would hope all abused spouses would testify, but alas . . .

  • 67. LesbosLoveBoies  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Bryce do you have a question for AnonyGrl?

    Quick update from AnonyGrl: She is in the building, but not in the gallery. Not much going on. Protesters are louder today than yesterday…hey, I don't like losing either!

  • 68. aquaCA  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    That sucks! I can see an H8ish kind of thing raising its ugly head…

  • 69. Chris  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    More Tweets that sound very good:

    TUCapCon Capitol Confidential
    by CapitalTonight
    Confirmed; "The bills will come out," on #samesexmarriage, Sen. Carl Marcellino says. Tonight.

    by CapitalTonight
    Cuomo spox @JVlasto sez date language in "big ugly" only affects mandate relief commish, i.e. gov's appointees.

    by CapitalTonight
    Sen. Maziarz says #samesexmarriage bill will come to Senate floor for a vote.

    CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    Asmblymn O'Donnell; can assure u if in fact its put to Sen floor there are the votes to pass it. Have known for a number of weeks 32 votes.

  • 70. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    @TPEquality ThinkProgress LGBT
    RT @ChrisHayesNY: The #NYSenate President is in the room. Likely going back into session soon. #NY4M

  • 71. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    They shouldn't be able to discriminate no matter how they are funded. I don't get why that's so widely accepted. Other business are privately funded too and they can't do whatever they want

  • 72. Chris  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    Saland on #samesexmarriage vote: I'm getting there."

  • 73. seth from maryland  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    all we have to do is gaine the morjority in the senate then maybie changes can be made , but for right now lets just hope this passes

  • 74. mr. gay  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    capital tonight is reporting that the same sex marriage vote will take place sometime tonight…. according to the new york republican senate leader…….. sounds good:):) lets just hope we have 32 votes or more:):)

  • 75. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Julie Bolcer
    @JulieBolcer Julie Bolcer
    New Yorkers United for Marriage (@HRC @prideagenda @freedomtomarry @NYEqualMarriage @LogCabinNY) endorses religious exemptions language.

  • 76. bjason  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Same here. Very troubling, indeed

  • 77. jpmassar  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Tweet:

    TPEquality RT @DavidHowardKing: Official statement from Skelos: marriage will come to a vote.

  • 78. Matthew  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    It WILL be voted on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    http://twitter.com/#!/NYSenate

  • 79. anon  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    It's definitely coming for a vote tonight. Skelos confirms that bill will be coming to the floor tonight (Source: CapitalTonight)

  • 80. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Dang, we're up to the magic number 80 posts already. I'm putting all new postings at the bottom instead of nested in replies.

  • 81. bjason  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    yes, the devil is laughing his non-severable ass off.

  • 82. 415kathleenk  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    RT @nickconfessore: majority leader Skelos puts out a statement: marriage will come to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote.

  • 83. cc in ca  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/statement-s

  • 84. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    @CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    Skelos confirms: #samesexmarriage coming to the floor.

    DAng website suddenly started making me put in name and email every time, even tho I'm logged in.

  • 85. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate no matter how they are funded. Any other business is privately funded too, yet they can't do whatever they want.

  • 86. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    The NYT says it, it must be true:

    @nytimes The New York Times
    State Senate to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage http://nyti.ms/lC7FQu

  • 87. anon  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Statement from Sen. Skelos: http://t.co/mTwr2d5

  • 88. mr. gay  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    UPDATED: Skelos just put out a formal statement, he did not speak to the press after the marathon closed-door conference of more than 7 hours broke. Here’s the statement:

    “After many hours of deliberation and discussion over the past several weeks among the members, it has been decided that same-sex marriage legislation will be brought to the full Senate for an up or down vote.”

    “The entire Senate Republican Conference was insistent that amendments be made to the Governor’s original bill in order to protect the rights of religious institutions and not-for-profits with religious affiliations. I appreciate the Governor’s cooperation in working with us to address these important issues and concerns.”

    “As I have said many times, this is a very difficult issue and IT WILL BE A VOTE OF CONSCIENCE FOR EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE"

    Vote will take place BEFORE Mid-night

  • 89. Guest  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Go NY state!!!

  • 90. Phillip R  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Well considering that they get tax exemptions, it still *feels* to me like they are federally funded.

  • 91. Steve  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Mhh weird. Took some time for that post to show up, so I thought it somehow got lost in the system. Now it's there twice, sort of

  • 92. Balu  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Vote tonight…. Hooray.

  • 93. cc in ca  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Analysis of Amended Religious Exemptions in NY Marriage Equality Bill http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/amendments.html#

  • 94. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    @CourageCampaign CourageCampaign
    Reportedly, Sen. Mark Grisanti is still on the fence re: #NY4M. Want to give him a ring? (518) 455-3240. #gaymarriage #LGBT

  • 95. nightshayde  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    I'm logged in on P8TT. I'm logged in on WordPress. All of a sudden, I'm not logged in for comments — and the system won't send me my password because it says my e-mail address isn't registered.

    I haz a confuzzled.

  • 96. davep  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Dammit! The thread just hit 100 posts and now all the replies are collapsed again! This is going to give me carpel tunnel syndrome for sure.

  • 97. Kevin  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    They just switched to full titstothewall soundcloud remixes on the livefeed!

  • 98. MFargo  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Thrilling!

  • 99. MFargo  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Depends on the funding source. If it's a private organization, they may discriminate. However, if it's a non-profit or receives Federal money, they may not.

  • 100. Billy  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    “I don’t think they should be allowed to discriminate no matter how they are funded. Any other business is privately funded too, yet they can’t do whatever they want.”

    I agree in principle, of course – but don’t lose sight of how “discrimination” works. Outside of certain basic protections (handicap accessability, gender in a workplace over 15 employees, etc.), constitutional rights only apply generally against the government.

    Brigham Young is not a state or local government. They can deny a free speech right or equal protection right without trouble. The state of utah, however, cannot. That’s the difference.

    In a basic sense, that’s really all the exemption language is saying. Brigham Young can continue to fire gay people if they want, even though they’re married.

    I agree – get a majority in the senate and fix it, but for now the victory is not that diminished by this language. It’s really very crafty on Cuomo’s part. All it amounts to legally is hand-holding for the screamy crazy religious people while they swallow the bitter pill of defeat and oncoming gay marriage.

    Get the victory now – smooth out the speed bump later. GO GO NY Senate – do the right thing!

  • 101. MFargo  |  June 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    I had a glitch too. Closed all my windows. Re-opened my browser, voila.

  • 102. LCH  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    It threw me off too I can't even log back in.

  • 103. nightshayde  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    I even logged in with intensedebate, but it's still not automatically logging me in to comment.

    Am I the only one suddenly having issues?

  • 104. JonT  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Guess I'll join Anthony (virtually) – get some wine and make an evening out of it :)

  • 105. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    You are not the only one, I'm having similar problems.

  • 106. bjason  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    OK. I've signed up to WordPress and am logged in to P8TT. Why do I have to/can't I log in to IntenseDebate?

    Someone help, please.

    BTW – enjoying watching the number of viewers escalate on the live feed!

  • 107. davep  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Ack! Now it just changed to an insipid GeneralMIDI harp rendition of some New Age elevator music.

  • 108. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Adam can we please have a new thread? Once the replies collapse it's too hard to have a conversation!!

    Thanks !!

  • 109. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    @CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    Senate GOPers predicting things move v quickly from here. Predict #gaymarriage vote before midnight, or even 11 pm. "Everyone's tired."

  • 110. Rich  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    What a thrilling night! Go New York! The rest of the nation is behind you 100%; Marriage Equality is on the march and their are thousands, if not millions, of gay youth out there who will find a reason to be proud tonight!

  • 111. Ann S.  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    @CapitalTonight Capital Tonight
    Saland says he hasn't made up mind on #samesexmarriage but says "I'm moving" in that direction.

    Do the right thing, Sen. Saland!!

  • 112. JonT  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    There is a new thread…
    http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/06/24/break

  • 113. JonT  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    What Ann and bJason said! :)

  • 114. MFargo  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    (I'm peaking!!)

  • 115. markrt2  |  June 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Amendment Language is out. (http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011) It strengthens the exemption language for religious based or backed organizations from being required to participate in any way with the solmization or celebration of “a marriage” that is conflict with their beliefs. I guess it applies for some sects if the two aren’t either Catholic or Jewish or of different races. Que Sera. Why spend money there?

    Also has a self-destruct clause; a statement that no part of the act is severable so if the religious exemption is ruled overbroad, kills the whole act.

  • 116. Jim  |  June 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Adam, is there any chance you could post, at the top of the website, the phone #s (and if others have them handy to give to you) Twitter handles and Facebook names for: Saland; Grisanti; Flanagan; Lanza? That might make it easier for NY residents to contact them in these last few remaining hours.

  • 117. LesbosLoveBoies  |  June 24, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Via AnonyGrl…She is not in the gallery. Crowded today. but, word is not many protesters are inside.

  • 118. fiona64  |  June 25, 2011 at 8:44 am

    No can do. The Unruh Act states that if you offer services to the public, you cannot discriminate.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!