Have You Seen This?

New York State Assembly Bill A08354 is the one that just redefined "marriage" in the state of New York. Have you looked at the text? It is quite astounding.

According to this bill, referred to as the "Marriage Equality Act" (how redefining "marriage" to mean something different than it has ever meant before is "equality" eludes me), is intended to give "Same-sex couples ... the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage." The motivation for this radical redefining of "marriage" is included in the text: "Marriage is a fundamental human right." That's right, folks. We have the "fundamental human right" to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, free practice of religion, the freedom to assemble, access to the Internet (seriously, when did that become a "human right"?), and others along with this inalienable right to marriage. From whence this right comes is not indicated. Since it cannot be from God who is evicted from this conversation, it must be from some other source. Good luck with that.

While the question of "human rights" seems odd to me, it isn't what is baffling to me here. It is the rest of the law that has been enacted. Apparently, while this is a matter of human rights, it is not an important one. I mean, sure, it was important enough to pass a law about, but it isn't important enough to actually protect. Look at the text of the bill.

According to this bill, down in S 10-B it says that "a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporations laws shall be deemed to be in its nature distinctly private and therefore, shall not be required to provide accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage." That is, religious organizations are not required to provide anything toward "the solemnization or celebration" for those who wish to indulge in this violation of genuine marriage. This, of course, is understandable. It has been the fear all along. If marriage is stripped of its meaning and made to include something new like this, people of conscience might be forced to act against conscience to submit to the law. And it's not like this is an unreasonable fear. There are multiple cases, upheld in court, of people fired for refusing to dispense abortion drugs. Their religious rights were secondary to the rights of the baby-killers and they suffered the consequences. So this bill puts in protections against such a thing. In fact, the bill goes on to say that "nothing in this article shall be deemed or construed to prohibit any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization from limiting employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained."

Did you get that? Yeah, I know, lengthy. Let me summarize. Those who stand on religious conviction are not required to hire those in same-sex couplings of this sort, nor sell or rent them housing, nor give them access to their organizations. Again, it's a bit more of the same as the previous protection, but it is an extensive statement. Same-sex couples engaging in their whomever-given human right of what has become known as "marriage" have no right to violate a religious person's right to choose whom he or she will employ, house, or admit. Now, it sounds like protection and, I suppose, it is. But here's where I'm baffled. If this is a human right, on what possible basis does the State of New York get to limit it in the case of the clergy or the like? If a Muslim sought polygamy in America as part of his religion, our laws would prevent his free practice of his religion. Or, if this situation, as they often argue, is equivalent to racial rights, how is it right to allow employment or housing discrimination on this basis? Yet here we have New York redefining "marriage" on one hand and providing it as a "human right" and then failing to protect that "human right" against those who disagree. Does this make any sense to anyone?