After Talks With G.O.P., Cuomo Expects Passage of Gay Marriage Bill

[brooklynite]

Source: NY Times

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said Friday that he expected same-sex marriage legislation to be approved before the end of the legislative session next week, and indicated that to win passage of the measure he is prepared to yield to Republican concerns for greater protections of religious groups.

“I am a proponent of marriage equality, and I’m working very hard to make that a reality in New York,” Mr. Cuomo told reporters on Friday as lawmakers prepared to go home for the weekend. “I am also a proponent of religious freedom, and separation of church and state, so these are both very important principles. I don’t see one in competition with the other.”

With signs pointing to a vote on the marriage issue in the State Senate next week, there are widespread expectations that it will pass. A number of Republicans are said to prefer that the matter not be allowed to come up for a vote, but 31 of the Senate’s 62 members have expressed support for the measure, including two Republicans.

Other Republican lawmakers appear to be seriously considering lending their support if Mr. Cuomo agrees to amend the proposal to give greater protection to religious organizations.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/nyregion/cuomo-expects-approval-of-same-sex-marriage-bill.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

---

I would be inclined to take the deal, get state recognition of marriage rights on the books, let the religious holdouts show their bigotry to the public, and then build consensus to tighten the law later.

[QuintanarooBoy]

1. Not mutually-exclusive

Just look north: Canada legalized gay marriage in '05 or '06, but that law leaves priests, ministers, rabbis and imams totally free to refuse to conduct same-sex weddings.

[dogfacedboy]

3. No problem there. Religions are private groups. They can make their own marriage rules.

As long as it's legal as a civil matter, that's what counts. The laws of man trump religious law in a civilized society. I strongly support the separation of State and church.

[eggplant]

2. Religious leaders are *never* legally obligated to marry people.

There are planty of religious leaders who would refuse to marry someone outside their faith today. So this "compromise" doesn't cost us anything. All it says is that people are still allowed to be bigots if they so choose. That's nothing new.

[Corruption Winz]

4. I don't see how this is a problem......

Religious people make it seem like once this law is passed, the state will begin shipping in gay couples and forcing the churches to marry the couple. I don't understand this. Private means you decide who you -- essentially -- serve. That's fine.

I personally don't see why a gay person would want to associate with a church in the first place. Beside the point. So long as they have the same rights as the rest of us, since they are US, I'm fine with any amendments needed.

[dballance]

5. I Have No Problem Letting the Religous People Opt Out

I'm gay and I don't feel the need to force anyone to perform a religious ceremony for gay people. I'm fine with letting the priests, imams, etc. not performing a marriage ceremony. That is their right if that is their belief. However, I do think marriage is a civil contract between two people so it should be open to same-sex partners.

Good for NY if they actually figure it out and make it legal.

[brooklynite]

6. I think the bigger issue is...

...religious institutions don't want to be forced the recognize gay married couples for the purpose of offering spousal benefits in empoylment, which may largely be addressed through existing laws.