Sunday, June 26, 2011
Legalizing Discrimination
Friday evening the NYS Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act but not before passing an amendment that exempted religious organizations from having to celebrate (or recognize) these marriages if they are counter to te religion's principles. Also this amendment can not be severed from the who bill without causing the who bill /law to self destruct. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011
I would not want to celebrate my marriage where I am not welcome so that is a moot point,in my mind.
It is the second section that is worrisome to me (see what I have bolded & italicized below) for it legalizes discrimination:
2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU
LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN
THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY
RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN
IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER
ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO
DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI
GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH
ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB
LISHED OR MAINTAINED.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor a religious scholar, but I can clearly see how many religiously affiliated groups--Mormons,Catholics,Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, Muslims. . .-- could use this clause to discriminate. Many of these religions run not for profit service delivery and education organizations. Perhaps they will refuse to serve those who are in a same sex marriage, or who so marry. Catholic Charities went out of the business of adoptions in 2006, because under equal protection they would have been forced to place children with gay adoptive parents prior to this type of clause, with this clause in place, Catholic Charities could have just discriminated against the gay want-to-be-adoptive-parents.
I have already heard one diocese say this morning that they will not hire any married lesbians or gay men to teach or work in their parochial schools.
If this legalized discrimination is allowed to stand, I am proposing that all religious organizations that have politicked for these protections have violated their tax exempt status, and should lose that status. This means the Church of the Latter Saints which funded (the California) Proposition 8, no more tax exemptions. Catholic Church & other Christian churches which lobbied against same sex marriage, against the full reproductive health rights of women (see Health care reform) no tax exemptions.
In other words, Religions, you can not have it your way--if you want to politic, if you want not to practice equality,i.e, to discriminate, you should not be afforded tax breaks. (This might also solve many communities' budget problems. . .)
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, that's EQUALITY, too.
I would not want to celebrate my marriage where I am not welcome so that is a moot point,in my mind.
It is the second section that is worrisome to me (see what I have bolded & italicized below) for it legalizes discrimination:
2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU
LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN
THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY
RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN
IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER
ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO
DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI
GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH
ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB
LISHED OR MAINTAINED.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor a religious scholar, but I can clearly see how many religiously affiliated groups--Mormons,Catholics,Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, Muslims. . .-- could use this clause to discriminate. Many of these religions run not for profit service delivery and education organizations. Perhaps they will refuse to serve those who are in a same sex marriage, or who so marry. Catholic Charities went out of the business of adoptions in 2006, because under equal protection they would have been forced to place children with gay adoptive parents prior to this type of clause, with this clause in place, Catholic Charities could have just discriminated against the gay want-to-be-adoptive-parents.
I have already heard one diocese say this morning that they will not hire any married lesbians or gay men to teach or work in their parochial schools.
If this legalized discrimination is allowed to stand, I am proposing that all religious organizations that have politicked for these protections have violated their tax exempt status, and should lose that status. This means the Church of the Latter Saints which funded (the California) Proposition 8, no more tax exemptions. Catholic Church & other Christian churches which lobbied against same sex marriage, against the full reproductive health rights of women (see Health care reform) no tax exemptions.
In other words, Religions, you can not have it your way--if you want to politic, if you want not to practice equality,i.e, to discriminate, you should not be afforded tax breaks. (This might also solve many communities' budget problems. . .)
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, that's EQUALITY, too.
Labels: religious freedom, same sex marriage, tax exemptions
Friday, April 10, 2009
Score one for a flyover state!
Well, for me, Iowa is not a flyover state--its a drive- to- state; we drive there a couple times a year, because that its where LK's family is. The following OP Ed from 4/9/09's NYT helps to correct a misperception of Iowa as a conservative state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09thrasher.html?_r=1
And, Iowa also took a stance and in 1998 adopted an Equal Rights Amendment to its State Constitution in a referenda even though Pat Robertson sent a letter to most households--my mother-in-law received one--that urged Iowans to defeat the referenda because Equal Rights would turn the women into feminists and "Feminists encourage women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, become lesbians, and destroy capitalism."
The Iowan ERA reads as follows: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal and have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and
happiness.” Iowa Constitution, Article I, §1 (1998).
Background: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?scp=3&sq=iowa%20same%20sex%20marriage&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09thrasher.html?_r=1
And, Iowa also took a stance and in 1998 adopted an Equal Rights Amendment to its State Constitution in a referenda even though Pat Robertson sent a letter to most households--my mother-in-law received one--that urged Iowans to defeat the referenda because Equal Rights would turn the women into feminists and "Feminists encourage women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, become lesbians, and destroy capitalism."
The Iowan ERA reads as follows: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal and have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and
happiness.” Iowa Constitution, Article I, §1 (1998).
Background: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?scp=3&sq=iowa%20same%20sex%20marriage&st=cse
Labels: ERA, Iowa, miscegnation, same sex marriage
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Nullification of Committment?
This video clip poignantly points out why the same sex marriages performed in California prior to the passage of Prop 8 should stand:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce
And then there are the legal reasons--the 14th amendment of our constitution for instance established equality before the law, nullifying the States' rights to nullification of certain federal laws based on religious grounds (oh, and there is that pesky 1st amendment right of freedom for/from religion).
For those who see an "out" of this dilemma with civil unions: first off, all marriages are civil unions--you all have heard that phrase "by the powers invested in me by the state of _____I now pronounce you (married)." The government grants many many privileges, rights and responsibilities to married couples (the Government Accounting Office counted 1049 when the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted --1996. Since then an additional 120 benefits or rights can be added to that list). Second, is the concept of "separate but equal"--we all know that separate is NOT equal.
But as I have said before, who one loves and commits to, as long as it is mutual should not get others' shorts up in a knot.
[That marriage as an institution needs to be examined, is yet another issue. But, perhaps same sex marriage does help rock the patriarchal love boat, at least a bit.]
http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce
And then there are the legal reasons--the 14th amendment of our constitution for instance established equality before the law, nullifying the States' rights to nullification of certain federal laws based on religious grounds (oh, and there is that pesky 1st amendment right of freedom for/from religion).
For those who see an "out" of this dilemma with civil unions: first off, all marriages are civil unions--you all have heard that phrase "by the powers invested in me by the state of _____I now pronounce you (married)." The government grants many many privileges, rights and responsibilities to married couples (the Government Accounting Office counted 1049 when the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted --1996. Since then an additional 120 benefits or rights can be added to that list). Second, is the concept of "separate but equal"--we all know that separate is NOT equal.
But as I have said before, who one loves and commits to, as long as it is mutual should not get others' shorts up in a knot.
[That marriage as an institution needs to be examined, is yet another issue. But, perhaps same sex marriage does help rock the patriarchal love boat, at least a bit.]
Labels: Prop, same sex marriage
