Reader comments · Fence-sitting senators could decide fate of New York state’s same-sex marriage vote · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Fence-sitting senators could decide fate of New York state’s same-sex marriage vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 30 May 2011, 11:09am

    Interesting that Greg Ball wants a clear division defined in the bill between Civil marriage and religious marriage.
    Not being funny but wouldn’t that Already be there. It’s not suddenly going to change what it is already because marriage becomes Equal.
    He might also want real religious carve-outs to protect the church but it’s one thing to not allow a same sex couple to get wed in a church but quite another to let the church openly discriminate those who choose to marry.
    It seems they will stall anything to keep us second class citizens.
    I suspect it’ll mean we can ‘have’ marriage only if the Church can openly discriminate against us over it.
    Coz they’ll never just let people get on with it.

    1. I think you’re right Jock S Trap that making marriage equal ostensibly means that the religious / civil divide becomes more transparent. However, I don’t think there is anything wrong in Ball seeking more clarity in that provided it does not act as a barrier to equality.

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Jun 2011, 9:44am

        Sorry Stu but the way I see it Ball is suddenly making it as if there is no difference between a Civil and Religious marriage.
        Why does he now need that justified?
        Id he that stupid?
        The differences are they, they are already known.
        Ball is just trying to stall to justify his own bitter discrimination.

  2. having a defined split between civil or religious marriage is only going to open up another avenue for yet more discrimination.

    1. jamestoronto 30 May 2011, 11:35pm

      There has ALAWYS been a defined split between civil and religious marriage except perhaps in theocratic dictatorships like Iran.
      Given the diversity of many countries and societies in the twenty -first century, insisting on only a religious ceremony would be stupid because in most – if not all – of the West the state is somehow invoked. Yes, afterwards the ceremony invokes religious and to certain degree prior to the State Function. Very few western countries require that a religious must take happen.

  3. “I really want to see real religious carve-outs that protect the church and other religious institutions” So much for the separation of church and state. If marriage is something that government can rule upon, then it should rule. If a church does not want to celebrate a marriage, for all I care it should not. It’s their faith, after all. But they should not expect tax exemption for being a discriminatory body. Gay marriage should be just that, marriage, and not separately delineated. But I have no problem with a particular sect not performing such marriage provided that sect gets no tax advantages from the state. This may focus their minds!

    1. The tax exemptions for religious organisations in general in the US are scandalous and most of the mega-buck ‘ministries’ would vanish overnight without them. They certainly shouldn’t have them and discriminate.
      All this is more stalling and B*llsh’tting. I can’t see how any religious body could be forced to perform a marriage ceremony in the US if it didn’t want to.

  4. “Ball added that he wants any legislation to include protections for religious organisations who refuse to recognise same-sex marriage.”
    Hmm. I read this as not just asking for permission for churches to not marry same-sex couples, but as permission for churches to discriminate in all areas relating to same-sex couples. So carte blanche to continue with the endless bl**dy sinners/destroying the family cr*p.

  5. The “clear division” is just a red herring. Not one country and none of the five states that have same-sex civil marriage have mandated that religious denominations have to recognise or officiate at a same-sex marriage ceremony.

    Dan, in America, no politician is going to support the removal of tax-exemption for any religious denomination meddling in the political process. Its political suicide. Americans are a lot more religious than most other western nations apparently, its a a lot more conservative than the UK, believe it or not. The difference between our system and theirs is that in America, declaring one’s religious affiliation is virtually a requirement, though not mandated, for anyone hoping to run for political office and almost all seeking the presidency are expected to be married. Almost all American politician pander to their religious constituents which is why New York State has had such a difficult time trying to get marriage equality passed.

  6. Iris, religious bigots who oppose marriage equality in America are actually the ones causing harm to the family unit. Many of them, including some of the married politicians have led adulterous lives. Rudolph Giuliani, former republican mayor of New York is expected to run for the presidency. He married his first cousin, committed adultery, divorced his cousin then married the second wife. He commited adultery yet again with the second and is now on his third marriage. Donald Trump is another. Newt Gingrich who also commited adultery twice, another republican who is vying for the White House. Not to be outdone, John Edwards, a democratic presidential contender committed adultery and fathered a child. All of them oppose marriage equality, all of them believe that gays marrying is harmful to the “institution” of marriage. All run on the pro-family mantra. Go figure! Its all religion-based bigotry! It flourishes in America apparently.

    1. Yes, the hypocrisy obviously escapes these people, Robert.

  7. Iris, we’re going to hear the same nonsense once the consultation begins in our own country. Rowan Williams and his bigot counterpart Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor will be singing in tune! What Cameron et al must acknowledge is that this is purely a civil (secular) matter and has NOTHING to do with religion nor will it be incumbent upon them to recognise or officiate at a same-sex marriage ceremony. Nip it in the bud before the predictable hysterics start.

    1. Agreed. That’s what enrages me about it – the fact that no-one points out that we’re talking about CIVIL marriage. I do wish politicians would say that clearly.
      As for this story, I got the feeling that the churches wanted to ensure they could continue to abuse LGBT people even if they were granted further rights. That’s what sickened me. Rather like the UNchristian institute and their cronies who want a special exemption from the law so they can continue to discriminate and stick their noses into other people’s business and strut around pronouncing us all sinners with no fear of being arrested.
      I dare one of these ‘religious’ people to ask for an opt-out from the race laws so they can spout biblical racist cr*p like they did decades earlier. After all, it only makes sense. But no, they think we’re the only people left that they can legitimately pick on now so they want to make sure that, even as we get more rights, they can carry on spewing their hate and bile. Sad, pathetic people.

  8. This “religious protection”, “religious exemption”, “carve out” is absolutely and completely a red herring. It is a wholly unnecessary distraction. I challenge Senator Ball, and anyone else who ignorantly makes this demand, to produce ONE, just ONE, example in the ENTIRE history of the United States where a church was forced, compelled, asked, suggested or in ANY way even encouraged to marry ANY two people that they didn’t want to. This is a solution looking for a problem. It gives him and others the opportunity to puff out his chest and grandstand to the masses that he is defending God, Christians and all that is holy from a threat that doesn’t even exist.

    He is also acting as if there are no religious faiths, groups, houses of worship or people who actually support civil AND religious marriage. My United Church of Christ FULLY supports marriage equality. Where is MY churches freedom of religion in a country that makes it illegal for my church to marry the people they choose?

    1. I agree it is a red herring but why not let them run with this provided it doesnt dilute equality of civil marriage. If it gives those who have (whether legitimate or not) concerns about same sex marriage but doesnt damage same sex marriage – where is the problem – its win win …

  9. jamestoronto 30 May 2011, 10:12pm

    What a lot of verbiage for something that so obvious. MARRIAGE is a CIVIL ACT hence, it is within he constitutional powers of a state, province, or some other political authority; WEDDINGS or MARRIAGE CEREMONIES are religious function that envelope and culturally enhance the union. Whenever the words “By the power invested in by the (state of…, province of…, kingdom of.., territory of… or whatever political division) THAT is when the marriage happens. All the ceremony that was prior of later is just wedding and NOT MARRIAGE.

  10. jamestoronto 30 May 2011, 11:04pm

    Part of the Canadian Act

    2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

    Religious officials
    3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

    Can it be any simpler???

  11. Drew Coyne 2 Jun 2011, 2:57am

    Nice plagiarism Christopher. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle seemed to do a stellar job writing most of this on May 28th. It must of taken you those two days to add some minimal new words and reorder the piece.

    For those who would like to read the original article, it is found here:|head

    I would seriously hope that you either take down this article, cite the appropriate author or reconsider your line of work.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.