Tweet
Update from Laurel: The Rhode Island Senate passed the civil unions bill. Marriage Equality Rhode Island and 9 other civil rights groups are asking Gov. Lincoln Chafee to veto the bill, saying “The bill put forth by the legislature would create onerous and discriminatory hurdles for same-sex couples that no other state has ever put in place.” Rhode Islanders opposing the civil unions bill can send a letter to Gov. Chafee using HRC’s letter widget here.
By the way, the Catholic Church made it clear that even civil unions weren’t palatable. The religious exemption language is onerous; more on that after this NYT snippet:
Less than a week after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, the Rhode Island State Senate on Wednesday evening approved a bill allowing not marriage, but civil unions for gay couples, despite fierce opposition from gay rights advocates who called the legislation discriminatory.The bill, which already passed in the state’s House of Representatives and which the governor said he was likely to sign, grants gay and lesbian couples most of the rights and benefits that Rhode Island provides married couples. It was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill.
Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations to not recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees.
So back to those religious exemptions. Zack Ford at Think Progress LGBT laid out the cold, hard, bigoted facts – the language allows religious organizations the right to deny recognition of civil unions altogether:
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.
29 Comments
If the organizations take public moneywhy should they have a right to discriminate?
Time to get every Catholic hospital and school on record as to whether they will follow state anti discrimination laws or religious bigot laws….
I can see this in court very soonFor any number of reasons. It would seem they’ve made it unenforceable, especially with that last paragraph.
Not exactlyEqual Protection of the Laws, is it?
Contrast that with civil partnerships in the UKReligious denominations and individuals with religious beliefs in the UK are not obliged to recognize civil partnerships but they are subject to the law in civil matters of employment, housing, adoption, hospitality industry and other services.
I’ve also learned that the marriage equality consultation begins in a couple of weeks over there. Amazing for a conservative coalition government. It will be a first if and when it passes, and probably will.
I’m puzzled why anyone still thinks civil unions are a viable alternativeBoth sides on the marriage-equality issue hate the whole idea, for opposite reasons. This is one of those issues where compromise and splitting the difference, however rational a solution it may seem in the abstract (to those who don’t understand the debate), just cannot work.
A few years ago, there was more consideration given to substituting civil unions when marriage equality seemed too unattainable. But even then marriage equality advocates were calling foul, citing Brown v. Board of Education and the problem of separate but unequal.
But now, when marriage equality is growing stronger than ever, and is gradually becoming a working reality, how could anyone who actually understands the issue imagine that civil unions could placate anyone? The game has significantly changed.
I never thought I’d be on the side of a civil unions bill vetobut I am. The Rhode Island legislature should go back and get it right: full marriage equality. Period.
Among other things….It will be interesting to see how many of these organizations try to use this exemption to discriminate against gay individuals rather than just against same-sex relationships.
They should still be no more able to deny services to a gay individual simply because they are in a civil union, nor to deny things like hospital visitation by a designated person or ignore a valid medical power of attorney than before this law. But they will.
And it will be interesting to see how strictly that “while acting in the scope of that employment” is followed.
The one thing that this law doesn’t seem to allow (but that the New York one does) is the idea of creating a “Christian Commerce Association” for the charitable or educational purpose of “supporting Christian values” and then for a modest fee, let any retailer who wants to discriminate to their heart’s content.
Even if they don’t take tax moneywhy should they get special rights? Ordinary businesses are privately financed too, yet we expect them to follow the law.
Why should a religiously affiliated university be allowed to treat its employees differently? They can teach what they want, but they shouldn’t be allowed to deny benefits
ExactlyIt’s completely ridiculous how even gay people want to get religious organizations get away with discrimination as long as they are “privately financed”. It’s such BS. No matter how they pay the bills, when they operate in the secular sphere they need to be under secular law. No one should be able to get away with treating employees differently, no matter what they teach
Question is asked backwards. And that matters.Looks like under this law, yes, an organization which takes public money is perfectly able to legally discriminate. There is no provision in this law otherwise.
But there is also no provision in this law saying that they must be allowed to get the money in the first place – unless that’s what the “or other cause of action for such failure or refusal” is intended to mean, and that’s waffly enough that it might not hold up under a court decision.
That’s really what “shut down” Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and Illinois – they refused to abide by the funding requirements for public contractors regarding non-discrimination. They weren’t penalized or fined, but they did make themselves ineligible for further funding. Whether courts in Rhode Island would see it that way remains to be seen.
When Illinois and Hawaii enacted civil unionsit was an occasion for celebration in many circles.
When Washington’s DP law survived a public referendum, that was an occasion for celebration although that was heavily tempered at the time by the Question 1 loss in Maine.
So to me, it’s always interesting how “we” (we = LGBT’s in the blogosphere) react when civil unions are enacted.
I think the expectations that Rhode Island would enact same-sex marriage were large (particularly after Chafee’s ascension to the governor’s office)–maybe too large. Hence the disappointment.
“…their sincerely held religious beliefs.”This could get very, very interesting…
What is a religion, what are religious beliefs, how do we prove a person’s religious beliefs are “sincerely held,” and how do we distinguish between religious beliefs and outright bigotry?
The law also can’t give only religious organizations the (special) right to discriminate based on moral objections to only this one particular issue… the precedent being set here will have to be applied to everyone without exception and to any act that anyone may find immoral.
In other words, the law can’t give Christians the right to discriminate against other belief systems without giving other belief systems the right to discriminate against Christians…
I would say that’s exactly what that phrase means….You watch. I still say get RI hospitals on record now if they will recognize CUs as next of kin. According to HRC Health Equity report, even the non-Catholic hospitals in RI (run by Lifespan) do not have policies in place which honor dp an cu ss relationships as next of kin.
The European/British modelreally doesn’t compare to US model. In the US all marriage licenses are issued by the states. It’s just that churches can preform and sign the marriage certificates saying that it happened. In the US there only needs to be one ceremony and many many happen in a church so much so that many people say marriage is a religious thing and not a contract with the secular state.
The point is thatRhode Island per capita is the most heavily Catholic state in the country.
The Catholic Bishop lobbied hard directly with legislators against any type of ss legal recognition. Many legislators (Democrats) held out for the religious exemption language before voting in favor.
Won’t do me and my partner any good at the Catholic hospitals and cemetery the rest of her family is interned at.
Especially in a state that recognizes s-s marriages conducted elsewhereCivil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are still a step up in many states. They were here in WA, for example, when they were instituted in 2007. But in 2011 RI they are a step backwards. Then when you consider the language in this particular bill that undermines the state’s anti-discrimination laws, it’s at least 2 steps backwards. A very strange situation. I’d love for someone who knows RI politics to explain how it could have even come about.
well, and because RI already recognizes s-s marriagesconducted elsewhere. If they didn’t, I think people wouldn’t be so firmly opposed to CUs. It was the same in NY – there was no thought of CUs because the state already recognized s-s marriages so why created an inferior institution when you already recognize the superior one? It makes no sense, and that’s part of the problem in RI, it seems to me.
And the crime thereis that although the Catholic hierarchy is (obviously) very opposed to legal marriage equality for LGBT people, regular Catholic folks are very supportive. 63 to 71% of American Catholics Support Same-Gender Civil Marriage.
RI bill say nothing about legalss marriages from other states. Those married in MA still have to go to MA and live there to get a divorce. Go figure.
RI politics = small town and Catholic.
I know, gross over simplification and stereotype. I followed this closely as my partner is from RI. Since the RI Assembly and Senate does not list co-sponsors on the internet it’s hard to find that type of infor. I collected information and tallies for the past months by reading RILGBT list serve (thank you DubnotDubu) emailed articles. One legislator is quoted as saying she was voting agains marriage bill because her monsignor told her not to. The bill couldn’t get out of the Democrat controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee until religious exemptions were added.
I agree with you and it’s very confusing.
Why enact civil unions in Rhode Island when they already recognize marriage? Especially seeing as Rhode island is sandwiched between Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Oh, I get the disappointment in this case, I was just noting it more than anything (well, that headline is pretty over-the-top but it’s acceptable considering this specific case…there was really no need for Rhode island to do this).
I would suggest that no Rhode Island couple get civil unionized!The religious bigotry exemption goes too far – for one that goes just far enough, see the one in New York’s new marriage equality act (and even that one isn’t perfect) Get married in neighboring Connecticut or Massachusetts – you apparently lose fewer rights that way, since it is clear to me that this statute only relates to civil unions performed in Rhode Island.
The Hawaii situation was unusualThe coalition had put forth both a marriage bill and a CU bill to the legislature in 2009. Given the complete lack of support for marriage in the lege, CUs were the best we were going to get at the time, and still, we had horrendous amounts of opposition. It barely passed the lege, and was, in the end, vetoed by Gov. Lingle.
When the coalition brought CUs back in 2010, after Neil Abercrombie was inaugurated as Governor, it was a relatively painless procedure. The celebrations there were an outpouring of relief after so. much. pain.
The LGBT community in Hawaii has gone back to Gov. Abercrombie asking if he would do the same thing as Gov. Cuomo, and his response has been, “Let’s let CUs go into effect first before we take that next step.”
Marriage equality in Hawaii will be a while. And no, we can’t take it to the courts there the way they are in New Jersey, because the Hawaii Constitution specifically leaves it a legislative matter.
not so simple
No, the situation regarding out of state same-sex marriages is not as cut and dried as that. The advocates like to claim that out of state same-sex marriages are recognized here, but I think they are actually trying to lay legal and cultural groundwork by saying that. In GLAD’s Q&A about Rhode Island, they use a lot of weasel words and then say “Thus far, there have been varying levels of respect by public and private entities in Rhode Island for the valid marriages of same-sex couples.” The original public statement about RI recognizing same-sex marriages did not come from a court, but from a now-former Attorney General (and the new AG is not LGBT-friendly), and his statement had a lot of vagueness as well and wasn’t legally binding.
When push has come to shove, there has been some recognition sometimes, and not at other times. People may recall the hideous case from a few years ago where a RI man who had legally married his same-sex partner in Connecticut was not allowed to claim his deceased husband’s remains (thus leading to a law to fix that specific situation after the fact.) Also, prior to that, our state’s Supreme Court issued an idiotic decision which said that same-sex couples married outside of RI cannot get a divorce in RI. There are dozens of couples stuck in legal limbo because of that decision, and legislation to allow same-sex divorce has not advanced.
Beyond that, I don’t want to say much more about the current situation here because the whole thing is way more complicated than anyone knows, and I’m in a personal situation where I need to keep my thoughts on certain things private. I will say that I believe that the extreme optimism earlier this year about getting full marriage was not very realistic given the makeup of the Senate — a fact that a lot of people were glossing over, mainly from naivete about how politics works.
If only it were that simple…just get married 7 miles away in Massachusetts.But we live here and we have to get “unionized” here to be able to file a joint state tax return or to have community property rights. We hate this law, but we’re at the age where death isn’t a long distant possibility. Whichever one of us survives has no protection from inheritance and capital gains taxes. This is a tough pill to swallow.
Thank youfor the clarification (that the situation is anything but clear). I didn’t realize there was that much uncertainty. My own conclusion from your comments is that given that a marriage vote is not imminent and remains subject to many factors, it might be best for Rhode Island to enact civil unions now, however imperfect, so that RI couples have at least a level of protection with respect to their own state and local governments. Nothing prevents them from also be married in a full equality state, regardless of the current ambiguity regarding RI’s recognition of those marriages. In a somewhat similar vein, couples who married in California were/are advised to also be Registered Domestic Partners, so that they’re covered when they travel to states that recognize CUs/DPs, but not marriage. (CA law permits both simultaneously…as long as you’re married and RDP’ed to the same person.)
One of the most interesting pieces of information from the New York campaign was the estimate by the Williams Institute that 25% of eligible same-sex couples in New York were already married. Bordered as it is by CT and MA, I wonder if the percentage in Rhode Island is even higher.
the biggest problem here …
So even if the hospital or other organization doesn’t discriminate, you’re still at the mercy of any functionary at a desk or nurse’s station. This bill needs vetoing just on this one section, or it’s essentially a step back, a civil union becoming a “kick me” sign. That kind of recognition we don’t need.
Good question, but the trouble is, the couples so victimized will have to make their case through a preponderance of the evidence, and that includes showing that the beliefs are not sincere, somehow. And there’s probably no case law on that that would be on point.
When the law makes exceptions to certain crimes……it is up to the defendant, not the prosecution, to demonstrate that the exception applies to his or her situation.
If I were to kill somebody in self defense, for example, I’m guilty of murder unless and until I can prove it actually was in self defense.
Same principle applies here… individuals and/or organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples will be guilty of discrimination unless and until they can prove it was due to “sincerely” held religious beliefs.
It will, in effect, put the sincerity of their religious beliefs on trial and under a microscope.
And again, that could get very, very interesting!
this isn’t a criminal matter but a civil actionThe victims sue in that case: they are the plaintiffs and have to overcome this particular exception. Let’s say, it’s like the Pond/Langbehn case, where the front desk bars admittance to the partner of a dying patient. She sues, probably under a tort or contract theory (naming the medical insurer, say). Gorgon at the front desk says it was from sincerely held religious belief. What then?
Trouble is, “sincerity” will depend on whatever applicable case law says it is. If the couple is harmed by the defendant’s actions, and the defendant asserts that it was based on his/her/its religious belief, then what? If the Defendant starts talking in tongues on the stand, or starts singing “Onward Christian Soldiers”, or quotes Leviticus, does ferocity of belief = sincerity?
Lambda Legal file on Langbehn case at
http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-…
Might be worth litigating under existing civil rights law but it’ll take a while for any case to work its way up.