#OnTheEdge

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. John says:

    What do you mean when you say “President Obama has issued regulations that require any hospital receiving federal funds to, among other things, allow for visitation of same-sex partners’.
    ALL hospitals (except for the Shriners) take medicare and medicaid which AFAIK means they are subject to the above regulation (the reason the Shriners avoid medicare is to not be subject to said regulations).
    Therefore, the point appears to be moot since they are already required to allow visitation per the regulation.
    As for the severability issue that does not appear to be an issue in this post either. This is because the hospitals will be forced to allow partners by their *choice* to take federal money and by the federal regulations which they *voluntary* accept.
    Of course, the language is still very broad and might pose some issues. I don’t see the hospital issue being a problem though.
    I suspect this will be litigated and if I was the plaintiff I’d go for the federal regulation and ignore the state law. By avoiding the state law and going for (already) current federal law the issue of severability can be rendered moot.
    Finally, I’d find it astonishing if gay couples got married in NY if any court would actually rescind their marriages retroactively. That would be the result of the severability clause and would pose such major issues that no sane judge would actually consider it.
    Good luck on the vote!

  2. PrometheeFeu says:

    “but if the exemptions allowed, say, a Jesuit hospital to deny visitation rights to a same-sex married spouse, I would object.”

    Why would you put that requirement on hospitals. If that is a concern, look up the policy of various hospitals around where you live and go to one which has a policy you can live with.

  3. Ari Waldman says:

    @PrometheeFeu: in an emergency, you can’t always choose your hospital. many people live in isolated towns in rural upstate ny with one hospital for 30 miles.

  4. Matt Lister says:

    “Celebrate” is often used in a way that I find a bit funny or annoying. I can’t say for sure that it’s a new meaning, and maybe I’m just being narrow myself. The meaning I find annoying is in sentences like, “We want to celebrate diversity”. I think, “throw a party for it?” If it’s a party I’ll come, but it never seems to involve beer, or even cake. But I think that “celebrating” a wedding just means the same thing as “solemnize”, but for people are not in to being solemn. (I wonder, though, whether this would apply to judges or the like. I was married by a judge, but if I would have known that this judge would refuse to marry a same-sex couple I would not have used her.)

    Any ideas on what the “rental property” bit above means? Other than the same exception from anti-discrimination laws that normally applies to renting rooms in one’s own home, I’d not be in favor of such an exception.

    On hospitals- in the city I grew up in there were two hospitals, but some services were offered only by one or the other, so if you needed those services, you had to go to the relevant hospital, or travel several hundred miles. I don’t think that’s wildly uncommon.

  5. Joey Fishkin says:

    Thanks for starting this conversation about the religious exemptions.

    It seems to me that the big prize in that fight may be the fate of adoption agencies that get state funding (along with other religious agencies providing various family services with state funding). Will Catholic adoption agencies in NY continue to get state funds even if they do not allow same-sex couples to adopt children?

    I am not sure, but it seems to me that this exemption language could lead to a different outcome than in Massachusetts, where the church made the stunning decision to simply pull out of the adoption business in Boston rather than comply with Massachusetts law requiring equal treatment of same-sex couples.