Government

Does NY’s New Gay Marriage Law Protect Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Unions?

New York’s same-sex marriage debate came to a close last Friday evening when the state Senate voted to allow homosexuals to wed. But, is the debate truly over? Already, new questions are arising over the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse serving or working for gay couples. From wedding photographers opposed to shooting a same-sex wedding to religious non-profits who may wish to decline health care coverage to gay partners, some are fearful that protections simply don’t go far enough.

WNYC quotes Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, who claims that organizations and individuals are not adequately protected:

“There are profound consequences for re-defining marriage. And this religious liberty exemption in my view does relatively little or nothing to protect such organizations and individuals.”

Rabbi Avi Shafran of the Jewish organization Agudath Israel, also sees potential complications for his faith-based group. Shafran wonders what will happen if the organization denies same-sex employees health care benefits for their partners. He says:

“If we were to stand on our religious principles, which we would do, and not extend benefits because we don’t recognize the union as a marriage, then the state could say that funds … would be denied us because we are not subscribing to what the state considers to be proper marriages.”

According to Townhall.com, via the Baptist Press, there are some protections that are not included in the new law. A husband and wife photography team, for instance, would not be protected if the couple refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. Additionally, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimrocks claims that there is nothing that can be done to prevent teaching same-sex marriage in public schools — something some opponents of the new law will surely have an opinion on. Nimrocks says:

“This language does not cover everything it needs to cover and everybody that needs to be covered. In terms of what it purports to cover, it remains to be seen whether it will be interpreted in the way that many legislators who enacted it are promising it will be. There are significant holes in this religious liberty language.

It does not protect individuals. It does not protect private business owners. It does not protect, for example, a bed and breakfast owner who is using their own private personal property in the type of intimate setting that a bed and breakfast is. It does not protect licensed professionals. For example, it does not protect counselors. It also does not protect lawyers — you may have a family law attorney who does not want to do a same-sex divorce because of their deeply held religious beliefs.”

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

The Boston Globe recently delved into the discussion, highlighting some interviews with anxious service providers. Bill Banuchi of Newburgh, N.Y., a provider of Christian marriage and family counseling seminars and services through his Marriage and Family Savers Institute, shared his worries over the new marriage law.

Banuchi fears that he will not be protected under the religious exemption portion of the bill due to the fact that he is a tax-exempt, non-profit educational charity:

“We have certain principles and ethical guidelines we’d have to compromise. We would be in violation of the law and open to being sued for discrimination, and we could lose our tax-exempt status if we refused to counsel couples according to their value system. Our value system is that the only authentic marriage is between a male and a female.”

Others dismiss these fears saying that current laws already prevent businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Still, there are a variety of questions surrounding how the new law will impact education, non-profits and individual businesses and entrepreneurs.

With one side viewing any and all refusals to serve homosexuals as discriminatory and the other side seeing the withholding of service as the result of a faith-based or personal view, the battle over individual rights is sure to loom.

What do you think?

Comments (183)

1 2 3
  • varnell99
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:52pm

    I do not believe a person or a group of people are entitled to something (anything) just because they are: white, black, Asian, Mexican, heterosexual, or homosexual. You should first keep the sex in the bedroom both types, and second work for what you desire. Quit waiting for someone (government) to give it to you.

    Report Post »  
  • becauseitmatters
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:49pm

    Buckle up. It’s about to get real bumpy. Our rights to our opinions are about to be stripped away.

    Report Post »  
  • JEANNIEMAC
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:46pm

    1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR FORBIDDING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”
    If our religion declares that homosexuality is immoral and sinful, we should not be obliged to recognize it as moral and acceptable. To force citizens to accept that which is against their religion is “forbidding the free exercise thereof”, and is therefore unconstitutional.

    Report Post »  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:50pm

      Leftists don‘t give a rat’s tail about rights… unless it’s their own.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • jkendal
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:53pm

      @jeanniemac – That‘s why this isn’t about “equal rights” – that’s just a ruse. Like I said in another post, this is about shutting down the Church – that’s the end goal here. Same sex marriage seeks to give homosexuals the “right”, under the law, to persecute Christians. Make no mistake – that’s what this is about…..

      Report Post »  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:23am

      ok, so what part of taking a picture of a wedding constitutes “supporting” that wedding?

      I‘m gonna be on the photographer’s side, to be sure, but if the photographer believed that the divorced should not remarry – and he photographed a wedding between two divorcees, how has he “supported” the marriage? would it have not happened without him?

      Get back to me when the minister is forced to marry those people (after all, no minister is legally required to marry a divorced person against his faith, right?)

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 8:47am

      so tammy, why does your special right take away from my fundamental freedom of religion and speech?

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • Baron_Doom
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:45pm

    Freedom means freedom TO discriminate. Period.

    Either you want freedom, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

    Report Post » Baron_Doom  
  • 264win
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:35pm

    It must be horrible to spend your entire life trying to get your parents’ family, friends and the world to except you for being gay.

    The politicians are now your friends LOL LOL LOL. They are just using you for the extra votes like the Latino’s and the Blacks.

    Gay people would be more acceptable if you presented your lifestyle with a little class. Instead you jam it down everyone’s throat and make everyone around you uncomfortable!

    Report Post »  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:49pm

      If they would just keep their sexual lives behind closed doors like the rest of us, we really wouldn’t care less. Making your sex life public and prominent in your life is inviting public excoriation, and deservedly so!

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:25am

      Baron – you do not, yourself – personally – keep your sexual behavior “behind closed doors” one bit more than the average gay man does.

      Unless you’ve witnessed them having sex in public and even so, there are cases of heteros caught screwing in public to and they are not made to stand for the behavior of all heterosexuals.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • FreeReligion.net
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:26pm

    Will tolerance be a two way street or will those who are religious be persecuted? I am sure we will find out soon enough.

    Report Post »  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:29am

      indeed. Please point me to ONE single minister or religious institution which was penalized either criminally or civilly, for refusing to marry an interracial couple. Both legislatures and courts declare such marriages legal, yet there has been NOT one act of force against anyone not on the government payroll for their disapproval on moral grounds of such a union.

      so obviously you have much to fear. /sarcasm

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:33am

      Tammy, time will tell. It hasn’t been long enough yet, but it will happen.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:24pm

    “If we were to stand on our religious principles, which we would do, and not extend benefits because we don’t recognize the union as a marriage, then the state could say that funds … would be denied us”
    Then do it without the funds, God will provide.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Kerri g
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:19pm

    I guess this is where I turn a little libertarian. The state should not be able to tell a business who they HAVE TO SERVE.

    Report Post »  
  • suicidekings
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:18pm

    Why should any government tell people who can and can’t get married, regardless of their sexual preferences. Marriage should not be regulated anyway. Let’s worry about what their job is in the first place. Do you really think you should have to pay for a marriage license?

    Report Post » suicidekings  
  • VinnieCCT
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:07pm

    What happened to the separation of Church and State. This is obviously the government imposing its religious views on the rest of us.

    Report Post »  
    • JEANNIEMAC
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:48pm

      The government is violating the 1st Amendment in establishing a civic religion of atheism.

      Report Post »  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:33pm

      And why should government define eligibility for a civil institution based on a religious institution? The big issue is that government has confused the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. If you truly want separation of church and state, then government should have nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:20am

      wait, what?

      your argument is that the government should impose a specific religious definition of marriage on all people whether they hold that religion or not – and to NOT do so is the unconstitutional imposition of religion on the public?

      Wow!

      whatever you’re smoking, pass it over!!!

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • tomf
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:59am

    Now the un-married and unattached singles need to sue to get the same tax considerations as those who have decided that they want to be couples. When singles are taxed at a higher rate, there is inequalities.When are they going to be addressed.

    For most of my working life, I figure I supported 2 1/2 families who were too lazy to work(they called it welfare). They were able to maintain a higher standard of life than I was because of the taxes I had to pay. Yet it was never acknowledged that us single taxpayers paid more in taxes than the so called couples.

    As far as I am concerned all income taxes should be abolished.

    Report Post »  
    • woemcat
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:14pm

      amen! it really hacks me off when people get all mad about the “marriage penalty.” i’m like, “hey, w/ marriage, you’ve always got the potential of two incomes.” i’m single and always have the potential of one income. stop making the single people carry the burden. i agree, abolish the IRS amendment to the Constitution. what an UN CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.

      Report Post » woemcat  
  • bellasbrat
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:51am

    I’m a limousine driver and I absolutely would not drive for a gay wedding, if I knew in advance that was the situation. So sue me!

    Report Post » bellasbrat  
    • becauseitmatters
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:51pm

      Soon the will. But not only that, they will get it to where you will be charged for a “hate crime”.

      Report Post »  
    • rolla020980
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 2:27pm

      Here’s what you do… you are unwilling to drive for a gay wedding because of your morals, which are most likely based upon a religious belief, right? When they sue you, say you are protected because your religious belief is that homosexuals are evil and that you are not going to help them in any way. The sad thing is that it probably won’t hold up in the double-standard court system.

      They want the freedom to be gay, I want the freedom of religion. Only one of these is guaranteed by the constitution.

      Report Post »  
  • joe1234
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:48am

    of course it doesn’t….that they would even try to include religious exemptions shows that gay marriage is not a right, because rights don’t take away other rights from people who disagree. gay marriage is a fascist movement designed to silence and criminalize those who oppose.

    Report Post » joe1234  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:02pm

      You bring up a good point— This is a backdoor entry to gain a foothold over religion. If you can’t succeed with the power of persuasion – use the persuasion of power! How Alinsky of them!

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • momprayn
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:47am

    Well, since you asked………..I would think that common sense would tell you that yes, this is going to cause all kinds of additional problems in all kinds of ways that we definitely do not need – but gay activists are very short sighted and self centered, living in denial and they don’t see these things & probably don’t care. They always see the “other side” as wrong & being horrible people if they don’t agree & continue to force their views everywhere bc it will make them feel more “accepted” and “normal”. People that own businesses should be able to choose who they want as employees and also the “clientele” they want to serve. The gays can have theirs and the others that disagree can have theirs. Too much to ask? Probably, in this very corrupt, “pc” nonsense day and age.

    Report Post »  
  • regressive_democrat
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:47am

    Behold the works of the Gay Mafia™ STFU and pay your protection money so they won’t destroy you.

    This is Godless America folks. A nation under judgement.

    Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:45pm

      OMG – give it up people – they just want the same rights that everyone else in this country has – thats all. Do any of you know anyone who is gay? Perhaps you should get to know someone who is gay – a family member or someone you work with because maybe you might become more open minded!!
      http://wp.me/pYLB7-142

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:26pm

      This was inevitable in a secular democracy.Once divorce is legal[a right ]whether it goes against religious beliefs or not- once the concept illigitimate and legitimate[children] has no meaning ,then marriage is not so important.A child born from a father who is married to someone not his mother has as much right of inheritence and support as the offspring of marriage.Once single people can adopt then all this whittles down the significance of family and its perogatives.That people easily divorce and remarry ,having many families,futher makes the whole concept of marriage, a quaint legacy of a foregone[religious] world.As a catholic i believe in the sacrament of marriage and so for me this secular adaptation of a religious past is now devoid of anything more then a legal contract,It is to me inevitale as secularism trumps religion in a secular democracy.i’m bemused by it ,but it does not threaten marriage as a sacrament.[the church is called to be counter cultural in a secular society].I want to see polygamy and bigamy legal too in the name of fairrness.

      Report Post »  
    • regressive_democrat
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:29pm

      Walkwithme…buddy On open mind is like an open mouth, it serves no purpose unless it has something solid to close upon. Truth, the Truth will set you free.

      Rose-Ellen, plz do not ever respond to a comment of mine ever again. You are a disgusting and vile creature.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:42pm

      Don’t corner me.If you don‘t want my reply don’t attack me!

      Report Post »  
    • beans bullets and bandaids
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:59pm

      @WalkWithMe… a gay man already has every right to marry a woman if they both consent. He is denied no right. If he wants marriage, he can choose it. If he doesn’t want to marry a woman he can choose that, too. Defining *marriage* as between a man and a woman does not deny anyone anything. Wanting other things addressed (insurance/benefits, next of kin status, etc.) can be done without trying to change what marriage IS.

      And yes, I know gays and have gay family members. Many of the gays that I know think this is stupid and that marriage IS for a man and a woman. They say it’s been that way for millennia and there is no reason to change it.

      Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:46am

    They were never interested in marrying: they only want force their will upon us and shut down churches saying they spew hate.

    Report Post » hi  
  • FLyoverman
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:44am

    Render unto Casesar the things that are Caesars. Render unto God the things that are God’s.

    Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:44am

    Whoever let this be framed as a rights issue has truly overlooked who’s rights are being violated. redefining marriage does away with the tradition of marriage the same way turning health care into a PROGRAM that disallows Insured treatment – OUTLAWS Insurance..
    These “Rights” issues are about taking away and putting in the hands of Government! Thusly they are about “ABOLISHING” rights!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • Spirit 72
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:18pm

      Amen, Ghandi,

      The nonsense about “choice” never is. They have a choice, but those who own a business private, public, or religious will (ultimately) have none.

      Report Post »  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:19pm

      I completely agree. We are losing more and more freedoms every minute.

      Report Post »  
  • This_Individual
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:42am

    Creating a law that prohibits a person from chosing who to do business with, would be against what we are trying to hold onto in our country. Even though that individual’s choice is discriminatory.
    There are plenty of other photographers who wouldn’t turn down a client based on their sexual orientation, race, or the kind of shoes they wear.

    Report Post »  
  • BRAVEHEART
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:42am

    Legalizing queer marriage or redefining marriage to incorporate the queer deviant of marriage just goes to prove that politicians are spineless little parasites and will not defend decent and honorable institutions which promote the growth of strong families and communities in our Nation. These are the same leaches in the tradition of Anthony Weiner that have never worked a real job in their entire lives and never tell the truth untill all lies are exhausted and exposed.

    Report Post »  
    • let us prey
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:59am

      Agreed braveheart

      Report Post » let us prey  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 5:00pm

      In a decade or less you’ll be championing it as another great stride in american history[you right wingers always come late to the table but come you do].Then you’ll use it as a justifycation to murder every muslims for not accepting gay marriage.We’ve seen this story before[women's right now being used to murder afghan women for their own good!].

      Report Post »  
    • kindling
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:12am

      Homosexuality is just one expression of narcissism and because most politicians and actors are also narcissists, they have no morals or principals. Narcissists make decisions based on their overpowering feelings which they must change reality to fit. That is why it is so hard to figure out a narcissist. They do not think rationally and will lie when the truth would serve them better just because lying fits their world.

      Report Post » kindling  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:27am

      In a decade or less you’ll be championing it as another great stride in american history[you right wingers always come late to the table but come you do].
      _________________
      You’re out of your freaking mind. Some of us actually stick to our values, e.g., 40 years after Roe-v-Wade we still think abortion is murder.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
  • garylee123
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:38am

    Nudge.

    Report Post »  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:27am

    “new questions are arising over the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse serving or working for gay couples”

    If this is the biggest complaint then I don’t have much sympathy. It is already illegal to deny anyone service or employment based on sexual orientation so what’s the problem?

    If a wedding photographer is willing to pass on a paying job that just so happens to include a same sex couple then I guess feeding their families isn’t that big of a priority.

    Institutionalized bigotry shouldn’t be catered to by law.

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:35am

      Name calling, and freedom taking, got to love the liberal mindset.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:49am

      of course you don’t have any sympathy for the rights of those who disagree…did you starch your brown shirt today?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:51am

      Sorry– GAY is the second most prosperous Demo-graph for the very reason that they largely favor transactions and business WITHIN their own community- Thus EXCLUDING all other demo-graphs verily!
      All part of the exclusionary principles of progressive organizing and alinsky division tactics from your progressives. Gays are being exploited rather than included!~

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • simplyme
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:04pm

      My family is fed just fine, and declining to shoot the wedding of a gay couple won’t make us starve. I’ll gladly forfeit the extra profit rather than participate in this celebration.

      Report Post » simplyme  
  • empleh
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:24am

    Why would you hire gay couples if it is against your religion? Wouldn’t that avoid the problem altogether? As a religious organization that is not discriminatory because applicants must meet your standards for employment. If you hire them, they deserve benefits regardless of their sexual orientation. I am against gay marriage in any shape or form but this issue is about hiring practices and denying benefits where they will obviously qualify.

    Report Post »  
    • NJTMATO
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:37am

      I’m wondering if you would KNOW if a prospective employee were gay. As far as I understand employment law, you are dissallowed from even asking if anyone is married…be they hetero or ****. This pandora’s box is going to fill our legal system up with so much BS we will not be able to move anything in the courts! Why can’t they just leave marriage alone?! It’s been with us for thousands of years….as have gays….but gays never required marriage. It’s none of my business who you choose to sleep with, this is between you and God. Stay out of Marriage…you can still get benefits if you are co-habitating with someone and you can have a Will for your estate naming your beneficiary. This is just more progressive BS to destroy the fabric of our society………consequences are on their way!

      Report Post » NJTMATO  
    • bellasbrat
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:50am

      “applicants must meet your standards for employment.”
      *********************************************************
      Tell that to the two who are sueing Abercrombie & Fitch

      Report Post » bellasbrat  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:22am

      This is just more progressive BS to destroy the fabric of our society………consequences are on their way!
      _________________________

      Yup!

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
  • sister1_rm
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:21am

    Exactly. This is Pandora‘s box and it’s been kicked wide open.

    I hate this fight. It’s not about law, or even about what’s fair. It’s about morals, the morals of the minority being forced on the majority. Law is simply the tool.

    Report Post » sister1_rm  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:33am

      It’s about completely ignoring 5000 years of history, evolution of society to promote the willful destruction of this nation.

      Report Post »  
    • garylee123
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:43am

      It’s also about shutting people up. Homosexuals cannot be offended in any way and you have to eat the excrement sandwich.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:44am

      “the morals of the minority being forced on the majority. Law is simply the tool.”

      Boohoo! What a victim! How sad it is that YOU, in a free country, should be FORCED to allow others to live according to their beliefs and consciences. Really. Name ONE thing that this law will force you to do? Better yet–tell me where it is in the Constitution that it says you don‘t have to give minorities rights if you don’t like them?

      You folks yell about freedom and common sense, but you use the most contorted, non-sensical arguments in order to restrict the rights of others. Please, stop being so stupid.

      Report Post »  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:54am

      @publiuspencilman
      First of all, homosexuals have cried “victim” for centuries.
      Marriage, to me, is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. The vows are spoken before God. Homosexuality goes against the Bible. What will this law force me to do? Witness immorality and the destruction of our country constantly. Did you see the celebrations after this bill was passed? Half naked people, a man in a tutu, cross-dressers – all gyrating against each other like one big orgy. I will never vote for Saland again, and I will get the H*** out of NY state as soon as I can!

      Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:40pm

      @PubliusPencilman
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:44am
      “the morals of the minority being forced on the majority. Law is simply the tool.”

      How sad it is that YOU, in a free country, should be FORCED to allow others to live according to their beliefs and consciences.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      If that’s all it was, you’d be correct.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Really. Name ONE thing that this law will force you to do? Better yet–tell me where it is in the Constitution that it says you don‘t have to give minorities rights if you don’t like them?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      The Constitution says I have to give minorities “rights”? What rights? Minorities (or anyone for that matter) has a RIGHT to my services? Minorities have a RIGHT to my business?

      You clearly have no idea what the Constitution is or what it says. Read it.

      PLEASE, stop being so stupid.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • rcw1120
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:30pm

      Sorry to burst your bubble but the fight isnt about morality so much as it is about equality. There is no reason that skin color, creed, gender expression, sexual orientation or otherwise should ever hold someone back from doing anything.

      I swear, if another person says that this will destroy the human race or this country, I will start slapping some people.

      1) Not everyone is gay.
      2) The world is overpopulated anyway, and studies have shown that as the population increases, so does the occurrence of homosexuality. Think of it as natural and god given birth control!
      3) Were are one of the last leading nations to do this, kinda sad isnt it? America is not much of a leader anymore.

      contact me: cowace10@uwgb.edu

      Report Post » rcw1120  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:27pm

      Bring it on. I slap back.

      Report Post »  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:28pm

      .edu. That explains a LOT.

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyRaiden
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:33pm

      Gender expression? I’m sorry ,but gender actually means something more than marking Male or Female on a form. The only way for equality is to strip marriage out of the government and give civil unions to EVERYONE. Your method will violate freedom of religion ,but that’s fine with you I take it since everyone will equal.

      Report Post »  
    • SouthSideLib
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:53pm

      SISTER- Since we all have different morals the law must not be used to enforce any one groups. Also, there is no forcing of any morals on anyone through this legislation. The law doesn’t force anyone to have or perform a same-sex marriage, it doesn’t give same-sex couples any special rights. Most importantly, this law was passed by the elected legislature, meaning that it is the will of the people of New York that same-sex marriages be allowed to be performed and recognized in New York.

      Report Post »  
    • SouthSideLib
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 5:00pm

      Publius- Well said
      1Proud- Your argument neglects the fact that we all have different morals. If you are offended by same-sex marriage that‘s fine but that doesn’t mean that the government should be in the business of denying same-sex couples equal rights. The fact that this passed through the legislature of a very highly populated state means that there are plenty of people who disagree with you. Part of living in a free, democratic country is that sometimes your personal will loses out to the will of the people.

      Report Post »  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 5:30pm

      The majority of New Yorkers who disagree with me populate NYC, which dictates what the rest of us in this state have to follow. Our governor is also from NYC.
      Morals come from the Bible – immorals come from NYC.

      Report Post »  
    • SouthSideLib
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 5:51pm

      1Proud- YOUR morals come from the bible, mine do not. It doesn’t matter that many of those who disagree with you come from NYC, they are citizens of the state just like you are, thats how democracy works. Also the votes didn’t all come from the city such as:
      Alesi (55th), Breslin (46th), Grisanti (60th), Kennedy (58th), McDonald (43rd), Saland (41st), and Valesky (49th)

      Report Post »  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:16pm

      Yes, and like I said, I will never vote for Saland again. Homosexuality is not moral.

      Report Post »  
    • rcw1120
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:30pm

      @1proudamerican

      Yes, I am a student. I think that the Republicans are afraid of the educated, because it will mean the end of them.

      Report Post » rcw1120  
    • 1proudAmerican
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 7:25pm

      Republicans are educated. We also think for ourselves and are not brainwashed by teachers with an agenda. I’m actually more Conservative than Republican, since they are falling into the same hole that the Dems/Libs are in.

      Report Post »  
    • kindling
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 9:31pm

      It is history repeating itself again and will end the same as every other time. The important thing is not to cave in to political correctness but rather to stand on principals and morals. It is okay to be in the world just not of the world.

      Report Post » kindling  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:09am

      Please explain how your morals are different today than they were a week ago. Specifically as a result of the events in NY.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:15am

      “Marriage, to me, is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman.”

      You see the two key words in that sentence?

      “to me”

      In a free country, “to me” is not sufficient reason to limit the liberties of those who hold a different view.

      You say that those who marry take a vow before God:

      Do Muslims? (if you are a Christian, you believe they pray to a false God and believe false doctrine)
      Do Hindus?
      Do atheists? Particularly those who stand before a government official to conduct their ceremony?

      Those marriages do not conform to what marriage is “to you” as you describe it and yet, they are legally valid unions.

      What makes the atheist man and woman who marry before a judge an example of “the sacred institution” but not the (Christian!) gay couple who is married in a church before a minister?

      nothing. Just your own bias hiding in the robes of religion, to scared to show it’s true face.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:21am

      This country is absurd. George Washington would roll in his grave at this nonsense.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • SouthSideLib
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 11:27am

      JJ- What makes you say that. Did Washington ever make statements about same-sex rights, or are you just assuming that he would agree with you?

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:19am

    “Banuchi fears that he will not be protected under the religious exemption portion of the bill due to the fact that he is a tax-exempt, non-profit educational charity:”

    That‘s because it’s not a religious charity; they set it up as a secular one. If they had been true to their purpose and beliefs, they wouldn’t have to worry. If you’re more worried about being “presentable” by not be affiliated with religion, you can and will run into trouble. Stand up and be proud of your faith instead!

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:23am

      As for the rest, it’s not like homosexuality is anything new. The article even says:
      “Others dismiss these fears saying that current laws already prevent businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.”

      Unless you’re a religious group protected by law, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, same as skin color, disability, or religion. Nothing new to see, it seems.

      Report Post »  
    • mikem1969
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:43am

      Pew York like commiefornia need to be kicked out of the US

      Report Post »  
    • NoName22
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:45am

      The solution to same sex marriage is simple.

      The term “marriage” as written in laws, needs to be replaced with “civil union.” This should apply to both same sex and male-female marriages.

      The purpose of marriage laws is to give tax status, ensure hospital visitation, 50% division of income made during a marriage, etc…..

      The BLESSING and SANCTITY of marriage is given by God, therefore it needs no recognition by man made laws, such as the Constitution……All are equal under the law, so the term “civil union” would be much more accurate. This would also allow religious organizations more liberty to bestow the blessing of marriage as they see fit.

      That’s what the United States is built on, equality under the law. It is also built on freedom of religion. If the gay community would like to term their partnerships as marriage, they can seek a religious organization that will do so. They should be afforded all rights given by the laws of the United States, but to receive the blessing of marriage, a gay couple would have to find an organization that would do as such.

      God does not need the Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage.

      1 Samuel 8:5,7
      And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

      And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should

      Report Post »  
    • NoName22
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:48am

      And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.*

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 11:52am

      @Noname,

      Would it not be easier, instead of rewriting laws that will take years (if ever) to finish, that religious organizations and churches simply admit that the government’s marriage is secular? That’s where the debate ends for me. I feel I‘m married once I have my proper Christian wedding and a ring on my and my wife’s fingers; not when I fill out paperwork at town hall.

      Religion does not have a monopoly on words. State marriage has always been secular, not religious (hence why religious officials almost always do NOT has the power to bestow marriage licenses; if they did, they couldn’t deny people based on their sexuality). The sooner people see that the government‘s terms are not the same as God’s, the better.

      Report Post »  
    • MONICNE
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:17pm

      For non-church run weddings, I say DEREGULATE marriage and let the MARKET Decide.

      Ayn Rand was totally married, totally unfaithful and amazingly promiscuous with many partners of both sexes. In a different era, she would have died of AIDS instead of lung cancer.

      But her Uber-Republican message endures: Screw morals, ethics, and religion! Celebrate the Self!

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:24pm

      There is a huge difference between discriminating against someone due to their race and discriminating against someone due to their lifestyle. Your race is not something you can choose or change whereas a lifestyle is constantly evolving and changing throughout your life. That‘s why it shouldn’t be illegal to discriminate against someone’s lifestyle. It’s a personal choice, and if I don’t agree with it, I shouldn’t be forced to accept it.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:43pm

      @Baron

      Would your opinion stay the same for religion? After all, which religion you follow is a choice.

      My point in mentioning both of them is that is IS illegal to discriminate, and the courts have upheld the legality of said laws. Nothing has changed with allowing gay marriage, except that more business will be generated. How terrible!

      Report Post »  
    • Wayner
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:07pm

      Filthy bunch of stinking queers. They make me want to regurgitate.

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:10pm

      Those who are proponents of full Gay rights and Gay dominance in all areas have their foot in the door now; expect full retribution against those who make any stance against these foul unions. I for one stopped performing marriage services years ago due to such threats of retaliation, physical and legal after one couple who waited such a laws passage said they would instantly take me and others of the churches to court for damages and civil rights abuse if we refused.

      In response we, the chruches and several pastors, across the board declared then ALL marriages will no longer be performed at all.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:18pm

      Is a photographer required to take everybody’s picture that asks him to? I doubt it. Regardless of this law, photographers don’t accept every shoot they are offered. You can always book all your shoots through Church referrals, only shoot for friends, etc. Nobody has a RIGHT to another individual’s work.
      RE: counseling – somebody already posted – if they only counsel along one religious belief, they should have incorporated as a religious service, not a secular one. So long as you offer your same ‘brand’ of counseling to everybody, it is not discrimination. If you are asked to counsel a gay couple, simply tell them your counseling is in accordance with thus-and-such, which includes teaching that homosexuality is a sin. If they STILL want you to counsel them, counsel them and teach them what you believe.

      Will a Church refuse to let a sinner attend service? If you are a drunkard, are you prohibited from attending Church? NO. That is especially who you want in the pews! Otherwise, you are preaching to the choir. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then you would want them attending services.

      As for marrying them in a partiicular Church, that was, in fact, carved out and addressed in the law.

      I don’t have the text of the law, and I’m not an attorney.
      Could there be additonal need for ‘tweaking’ the law?
      Sure!

      No big deal, I say.

      “If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket, what business is it of mine” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter C

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • jkendal
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:25pm

      @snowleopard
      “…one couple who waited such a laws passage said they would instantly take me and others of the churches to court for damages and civil rights abuse if we refused.”

      Everyone please take note. Same sex marriage is not about anything but a chance to destroy Christianity – the end goal of the homosexual lobby. It most certainly isn’t about equal rights. Homosexuals already possess the same rights as everyone else under the Constitution. Heck, they’re already a protected class. No, what they want are special rights – immunity, if you will, from going after Christians. There will be no Equal Protection under the law – this will make a MOCKERY of it – and it will destroy our country in the process.

      Again – and make no mistake – this is all the end goal of the homosexual lobby.

      Report Post »  
    • WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 5:40pm

      There is no such thing as “gay marriage” … it is perversion, an abomination, and will be Judged as the Crime it is.

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:07am

      “Everyone please take note. Same sex marriage is not about anything but a chance to destroy Christianity –”

      Rather, everyone please take not that their are lawsuit happy people, and people with agendas, of all persuasions and unless the Christians want to agree to the notion that Fred Phelps (very lawsuit happy crowd) represents the agenda of all Christianity, then citing an anecdote (never-mind one told anonymously on an internet forum) doesn’t prove anything at all about the overall “gay agenda”

      Just about that one (supposed) person.

      By the way – My name is Elmer J. Fudd, I own a mansion and a yacht.

      i said it on the internet, therefore it must be true.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • click_name_4_impeachment
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:12am

      This is why the government should just get out of the marriage business period….This is stupid, regulations always bring up more issues once they are in place…..get out of the marriage business, both sides, are just making more out of this than it needs to be. I’m sorry…I don’t agree with gay marriage, but fighting for it and against it does nothing positive. If government would just but out, this issue would not even be one, and the gays would have nothing to fight for or use against anyone….it really is that simple…..every union should be a civil union in the governments eyes, and leave marriage to what it is supposed to be…two people committing themselves before God.

      Report Post »  
    • ZJD92
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 7:45am

      I agree completely with Tammy_Beth. If God sees being happy with a person you love as a sin, then he will judge you for it. If he does‘nt give two ***** about something as ridiculously irrelivant as gay people marrying then he won’t. Why would God care about it? Among all the sins of men homosexuality is at the very bottom of the list.

      Report Post »  
    • nysparkie
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 8:01am

      When will Sheeple just read a constitution? Why are different classes of people always getting special bills, laws, handouts, whatever. As a society we are all protected under or by either: A state constitution or the US Constitution. What ends up irking the majority is these special bills for every class of “SPECIALS” that come down the pike. Every politician just has to, has to curry favor with everyone for an extra vote, it is sickening! This legislative, judicious society has made it near impossible to just live your life without fear of offending someone, some class of people. Whatever is is said is dissected, analyzed and scrutinized to see if someones sensibilities or “SELF DESCRIBED” freedoms are being violated. Then the lawyers and law makers get involved and we all lose a little more freedom making living from day to day so much more stressful and isolated. We don’t want to associate with others other than those you can truly and intimately trust. GOD WHERE IS THAT COMET MARKED SPECIAL DELIVERY EARTH!

      Report Post » nysparkie  
    • independentvoteril
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:39pm

      A business should have the right to REFUSE to serve ANYONE they want.. it’s THEIR business.. which is why there has been a huge uptake in underground businesses popping up.. so be it .. I would hire someone OFF the books if the reason they were is so they could serve who they choose to.. and HIRE who they want

      Report Post » independentvoteril  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love