By DANNY HAKIM
Published: June 25, 2011
ALBANY — It was just a few paragraphs, but they proved to be the most microscopically examined and debated — and the most pivotal — in the battle over same-sex marriage.
Enlarge This Image
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
Senator Stephen M. Saland helped to fine-tune changes in the bill on gay marriage.
Related
Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces (June 26, 2011)
At Clerks’ Offices, Girding for More Weddings (June 26, 2011)
New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law (June 25, 2011)
A Sense of Euphoria Settles on the West Village (June 25, 2011)
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Columnist: Why Is He Bi? (Sigh) (June 26, 2011)
Op-Ed Columnist: To Know Us Is to Let Us Love (June 26, 2011)
Language that Republican senators inserted into the bill legalizing same-sex marriage provided more expansive protections for religious organizations and helped pull the legislation over the finish line Friday night.
The Republicans who insisted on the provision did not only want religious organizations and affiliated groups to be protected from lawsuits if they refused to provide their buildings or services for same-sex marriage ceremonies, they also wanted them to be spared any penalties by state government. That would mean, for example, a church that declined to accommodate same-sex weddings could not be penalized later with the loss of state aid for the social service programs it administers.
Such language is not unheard of; New Hampshire, which also approved a same-sex marriage bill, included similar protections.
Senator Stephen M. Saland, a Republican and a Hudson Valley lawyer known for his cautious and low-profile approach, was one of three senators who negotiated the language changes with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, and his administration, spending days poring over the fine print.
The amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not “result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation.”
The amendment also included protections for “any employee thereof being managed, directed or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order or a not-for-profit corporation.” And it included similar protections for clergy who declined to perform same-sex ceremonies.
Finally, the legislation contained what is known as an inseverability clause. If a court found any part of the act to be invalid, the entire legislation would also be invalid. The clause is an important provision to Republicans because it means that the marriage legislation would be at risk if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court.
Before the bill was taken up, the New York Civil Liberties Union said it could live with the exemptions. “We have reviewed the entire bill, including the latest amendments, and we urge the Legislature to pass the Marriage Equality Act immediately,” said Donna Lieberman, the group’s executive director. She said the new legislation “respects the right of clergy, churches and religious organizations to decide for themselves which marriages they will or will not solemnize or celebrate in keeping with our country’s principles of religious freedom.”
No comments:
Post a Comment