Same-Sex Marriage Update

Heart · 06-26-2011, 08:18 PM

Wasn't NY Pride AWESOME? I can't remember last time there was such a huge joyous crowd! Cheryl - you looked HOT! Mr. B - were you there??

Mister Bent · 06-26-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart

Wasn't NY Pride AWESOME? I can't remember last time there was such a huge joyous crowd! Cheryl - you looked HOT! Mr. B - were you there??

I was! I took that photo.

Julie invited me to hang out with her posse, and Gov. Cuomo convinced me I had to go.

Julie · 06-27-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

I was! I took that photo.

Julie invited me to hang out with her posse, and Gov. Cuomo convinced me I had to go.

You were the perfect accompaniment to my posse. The boys adored you and are still talking about their *M* -- I never saw gay men fawn over a guy like they did you. Very cute actually.

MsTinkerbelly · 06-30-2011, 08:00 AM

The difference between life and death in the Rhode Island civil union bill
By Adam Bink

The Rhode Island legislature just passed legislation legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

This was a difficult road. The choice was made to push a civil unions bill through in Rhode Island rather than marriage — a choice that may, to Rhode Islanders, be the best choice based on what they want and need at the moment.

What becomes a problem is language like this in the bill:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

Perhaps some legislators looked at the careful negotiation and insertion of religious exemption language in New York State and demanded the same deal. The difference is that pastors deciding who to marry, and synagogues deciding whether to rent out their reception hall for a wedding, is not the same as this.

I’ll give you an example: if I were back home in suburban Buffalo and my partner had a medical emergency and I had to get him to a hospital, Kenmore Mercy hospital would be the closest at just over 3 miles away. I could drive there in my sleep. Unfortunately for me, Kenmore Mercy is a Catholic hospital. If he were treated at Kenmore Mercy, then despite all my civil union paperwork, despite my partner’s wishes for me to make important medical decisions on his behalf, or be at the doctors’ side to tell them important information like what he’s allergic to or that he only has one functional kidney, they can treat me as a complete stranger and it’s legal. They could do to me the same as what happened to Daniel Weiss in New Jersey, one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit being filed:

Daniel Weiss, for instance, had to show doctors his civil union ring to show that he could make medical decisions for his long-time partner, John Grant, after Grant was struck by a car and his skull shattered in Manhattan. Despite explaining it to attending doctors, the hospital called Grant’s sister up from Delaware – four hours away – to make medical decisions for him.

“At the moment that we needed civil unions the most to provide equality, it failed for us miserably,” said Weiss. “To this day, the records at Bellevue Hospital do not recognize that I am the next of kin.”

Let’s say I didn’t want to go to a Catholic hospital because of those very concerns. Then the next closest hospital would either be Millard Fillmore-Gates Circle or Millard Fillmore Suburban, both about 6 miles away. That’s twice the distance, more stoplights, more chance for an accident or hitting traffic.

That’s the difference between life and death. And this bill’s language could mean that.

Will Gov. Chafee veto it?

iamkeri1 · 06-30-2011, 05:21 PM

Yikes Tink!
Dang! what a quandry! Under the heading of "something is better than nothing", I would not want this bill vetoed, but (again) dang! it needs a little tweaking.
Smooches,
Keri

Jess · 06-30-2011, 09:54 PM

As I see it, Civil Unions are never going to carry the same legal weight as "marriage". I used to think they would be fine as long as we got the same rights. However, they will never be the same.

I don't have a problem with religious institutions ( churches, synagogues, mosques) refusing to "cater to" LGBT couples regarding marriage or even individuals seeking religious guidance. I do have issue with an institution that charges for their services and are open to the "public" not adhering to what a state views as a legal marriage.

On the other hand, I also do support the rights of a privately owned business to "refuse service" as they deem fit. I think the harder question is should "hospitals" etc be run by a church? Once a church becomes a "for profit" institution, in my opinion, they become ethically responsible to the larger community they serve and the laws that govern that community.

I am really fine with a church saying to me ( or another LGBT couple): " No, we will not hold your service here because we do not agree with your choices", because I believe MOST LGBT folks would not be attending a church who would not honor them. At least, I can safely say I would not be. As long as the LAW allows us to marry, we can get married ANYWHERE. Churches( that are LGBT friendly) backyard, park, alley beside the justice of the peace, so who really needs to push the issue of being married IN a church?

We seek LEGAL rights, not religious...so by all means, protect your churches! If a hospital denies legal rights however, that hospital needs to become privatized and not open to the general public.

Thanks for the continuing updates! Much appreciated!

MsTinkerbelly · 07-01-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Yikes Tink!
Dang! what a quandry! Under the heading of "something is better than nothing", I would not want this bill vetoed, but (again) dang! it needs a little tweaking.
Smooches,
Keri

I personally think this one needs to be vetoed.

Sometimes we have to say we are no going to take second best, and this looks like one of them.

Jess · 07-06-2011, 05:28 PM

This is really very heart warming and shows that some religious groups are on a more open minded path.

United Church of Christ Passes Two More LGBT Affirming Resolutions

Yesterday was a good day for the United Church of Christ. Delegates of General Synod 28, the UCC’s national deliberative body, passed two resolutions Tuesday: one calling for international human rights for all people and rejecting systematic discrimination against LGBT people, and another affirming the support for all families wishing to adopt and raise children.

“All God’s children who are LGBT deserve freedom from fear of torture, freedom from fear of sexual assault and execution, access to education and competent health care, and guarantees of non-discrimination in their professional and family lives,” said the Rev. Emily Heath, a member of the Vermont Conference and the resolution review committee.
The United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination, has historically been one of the most LGBT affirming religious groups in the United States, and ordained the Rev. William R. Johnson, an openly gay minister, in 1972. In 1985, the General Synod passed a resolution calling on all UCC congregations to “declare themselves open and affirming,” and in 2005, the UCC became the first mainline Christian denomination to officially support marriages for all couples. The General Synod meets every two years to vocalize the UCC’s stance on particular issues to the wider church body. Because the UCC is a covenantal polity, individual congregations can differ from the General Synod on non-constitutional matters.

In order for universal human rights standards to be truly universal, every person, whatever their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, is entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights;
The use of criminal law, or proposals to use criminal law, against members of sexual minorities creates a legal and social environment that is discriminatory and violates the human rights endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Supporting International Human Rights Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 28th General Synod

Article taken from: http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/unit...g-resolutions/

06-26-2011, 08:18 PM	#1
Heart Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Relationship Status: rainbows! Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: NY Posts: 466 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 303 Thanked 2,522 Times in 409 Posts Rep Power: 12032610	WHOOT Wasn't NY Pride AWESOME? I can't remember last time there was such a huge joyous crowd! Cheryl - you looked HOT! Mr. B - were you there??

06-30-2011, 08:00 AM	#4
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Prop 8 trial tracker...inequality The difference between life and death in the Rhode Island civil union bill By Adam Bink The Rhode Island legislature just passed legislation legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. This was a difficult road. The choice was made to push a civil unions bill through in Rhode Island rather than marriage — a choice that may, to Rhode Islanders, be the best choice based on what they want and need at the moment. What becomes a problem is language like this in the bill: 15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required: (1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or (2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or (3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. (b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal. Perhaps some legislators looked at the careful negotiation and insertion of religious exemption language in New York State and demanded the same deal. The difference is that pastors deciding who to marry, and synagogues deciding whether to rent out their reception hall for a wedding, is not the same as this. I’ll give you an example: if I were back home in suburban Buffalo and my partner had a medical emergency and I had to get him to a hospital, Kenmore Mercy hospital would be the closest at just over 3 miles away. I could drive there in my sleep. Unfortunately for me, Kenmore Mercy is a Catholic hospital. If he were treated at Kenmore Mercy, then despite all my civil union paperwork, despite my partner’s wishes for me to make important medical decisions on his behalf, or be at the doctors’ side to tell them important information like what he’s allergic to or that he only has one functional kidney, they can treat me as a complete stranger and it’s legal. They could do to me the same as what happened to Daniel Weiss in New Jersey, one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit being filed: Daniel Weiss, for instance, had to show doctors his civil union ring to show that he could make medical decisions for his long-time partner, John Grant, after Grant was struck by a car and his skull shattered in Manhattan. Despite explaining it to attending doctors, the hospital called Grant’s sister up from Delaware – four hours away – to make medical decisions for him. “At the moment that we needed civil unions the most to provide equality, it failed for us miserably,” said Weiss. “To this day, the records at Bellevue Hospital do not recognize that I am the next of kin.” Let’s say I didn’t want to go to a Catholic hospital because of those very concerns. Then the next closest hospital would either be Millard Fillmore-Gates Circle or Millard Fillmore Suburban, both about 6 miles away. That’s twice the distance, more stoplights, more chance for an accident or hitting traffic. That’s the difference between life and death. And this bill’s language could mean that. Will Gov. Chafee veto it?

06-30-2011, 05:21 PM	#5
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 905 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 302 Thanked 2,153 Times in 659 Posts Rep Power: 16642920	Yikes Tink! Dang! what a quandry! Under the heading of "something is better than nothing", I would not want this bill vetoed, but (again) dang! it needs a little tweaking. Smooches, Keri

06-30-2011, 09:54 PM	#6
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	As I see it, Civil Unions are never going to carry the same legal weight as "marriage". I used to think they would be fine as long as we got the same rights. However, they will never be the same. I don't have a problem with religious institutions ( churches, synagogues, mosques) refusing to "cater to" LGBT couples regarding marriage or even individuals seeking religious guidance. I do have issue with an institution that charges for their services and are open to the "public" not adhering to what a state views as a legal marriage. On the other hand, I also do support the rights of a privately owned business to "refuse service" as they deem fit. I think the harder question is should "hospitals" etc be run by a church? Once a church becomes a "for profit" institution, in my opinion, they become ethically responsible to the larger community they serve and the laws that govern that community. I am really fine with a church saying to me ( or another LGBT couple): " No, we will not hold your service here because we do not agree with your choices", because I believe MOST LGBT folks would not be attending a church who would not honor them. At least, I can safely say I would not be. As long as the LAW allows us to marry, we can get married ANYWHERE. Churches( that are LGBT friendly) backyard, park, alley beside the justice of the peace, so who really needs to push the issue of being married IN a church? We seek LEGAL rights, not religious...so by all means, protect your churches! If a hospital denies legal rights however, that hospital needs to become privatized and not open to the general public. Thanks for the continuing updates! Much appreciated!

07-06-2011, 05:28 PM	#8
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	This is really very heart warming and shows that some religious groups are on a more open minded path. United Church of Christ Passes Two More LGBT Affirming Resolutions Yesterday was a good day for the United Church of Christ. Delegates of General Synod 28, the UCC’s national deliberative body, passed two resolutions Tuesday: one calling for international human rights for all people and rejecting systematic discrimination against LGBT people, and another affirming the support for all families wishing to adopt and raise children. “All God’s children who are LGBT deserve freedom from fear of torture, freedom from fear of sexual assault and execution, access to education and competent health care, and guarantees of non-discrimination in their professional and family lives,” said the Rev. Emily Heath, a member of the Vermont Conference and the resolution review committee. The United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination, has historically been one of the most LGBT affirming religious groups in the United States, and ordained the Rev. William R. Johnson, an openly gay minister, in 1972. In 1985, the General Synod passed a resolution calling on all UCC congregations to “declare themselves open and affirming,” and in 2005, the UCC became the first mainline Christian denomination to officially support marriages for all couples. The General Synod meets every two years to vocalize the UCC’s stance on particular issues to the wider church body. Because the UCC is a covenantal polity, individual congregations can differ from the General Synod on non-constitutional matters. In order for universal human rights standards to be truly universal, every person, whatever their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, is entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights; The use of criminal law, or proposals to use criminal law, against members of sexual minorities creates a legal and social environment that is discriminatory and violates the human rights endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. - Supporting International Human Rights Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 28th General Synod Article taken from: http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/unit...g-resolutions/