Vote on New York gay marriage may not be until mid-week

Related Topics

By Dan Wiessner

ALBANY, New York | Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:24pm EDT

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - Same-sex marriage is one vote away from approval in the state of New York, but the Senate's Republican majority on Monday once again delayed a vote on the controversial measure, citing concerns over exemptions for religious organizations.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos emerged from a closed-door meeting with Governor Andrew Cuomo and said amendments to the current proposal were being drafted.

"We're making sure the religious protections are solid and that they will stand," Skelos said.

Monday was supposed to be the last day of the legislative session, but leaders confirmed they would stay at the Capitol at least through Wednesday to work out deals on the marriage bill, as well as an extension of rent control laws for New York City and a cap on property tax increases.

Cuomo, a Democrat who has made gay marriage a top priority, introduced the bill, which is currently one vote shy of passage in the state Senate. The state Assembly approved the bill last week.

Advocates who cheered the marriage bill at the statehouse on Monday vowed to hold rallies until the bill passes, calling for another gathering on Tuesday.

"Together we will make sure that all New Yorkers will soon be able to marry the person they love," Stefan Friedman, spokesman for New Yorkers United for Marriage, said in a statement.

"We are heartened that there continues to be respectful and productive dialogue on the issue of marriage equality and believe we are getting close to a vote on the Governor's marriage bill."

But a large number of gay marriage opponents converged on the Capitol as well, calling for lawmakers to reject the proposal. Religious officials have said that allowing same-sex marriage will undermine the stability of the family unit.

If the bill is passed, it would make New York the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, after Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont. It would also be the most populous state to allow same sex marriage. Four states have civil unions. Gay marriage is specifically banned in 39 states.

The debate in New York has made same-sex marriage a key national issue ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

(Editing by Barbara Goldberg and Greg McCune)
U.S.
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (11)
KepplerT wrote:
Here’s hoping that our advocates don’t sell us out by allowing marriage to be redefined especially for gay people, allowing the so-called christians to discriminate against us on issues related to adoption, services, and housing.

Jun 20, 2011 8:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wrpa wrote:
Actually, at this point it appears that the primary focus is to expand freedom of religion rather than protect same sex couples from further discrimination. In light of that twist by the Republicans, it would be preferable to take the legislation off the table and pursue equality through the federal courts, which have already declared DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional. When (not if) the Supreme Court declares same sex marriage covered by the equal protection clause,it will not be providing religions with any “safeguards” whatsoever and will merely order clerks to issue marriage licenses forthwith.

Jun 20, 2011 8:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SteveMD2 wrote:
Remember when the archbishop said something about holy matrimony and marriage.

well, my daugher was married to an asian, 30 years to the day that inter-racial marriage bans were overturned, to the screaming of conservatives.

And there was nothing holy about her marriage. No church officials, no prayers, no religious words at all. Simply a legal marriage by a court clerk and a big party afterwards.

the archbishop is simply trying to mislead people.

while I support protecting the churhc, and closely assocaited entities eg knights of columbus etc, no way should we let the so called conscious clauses that would allow merchants to refuse services based on religion.

that was exactly what segregation, go to the back of the bus etc, separatee water fountains werfe about in the bible belt south.

And what a pandoras box of horrors we would open up. How about people on religious grounds refusing to serve jews, blacks, asians, and anyone else their heart desires, in the name of their God.

Jun 20, 2011 9:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
See All Comments »