Religious freedom; marriage solemnization, participation, and beliefs. (SB41)

Introduced By

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson) with support from co-patron Sen. Ben Chafin (R-Lebanon)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Religious freedom; solemnization of marriage. Provides that no individual authorized to solemnize any marriage shall be required to do so and no religious organization shall be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization of any marriage if the action would cause the individual or organization to violate a sincerely held religious belief. The bill also provides that no liability shall arise from a refusal to solemnize a marriage or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization of any marriage and that the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions shall not take any other action to penalize such individual or organization for such a refusal. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
12/15/2015Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16101522D
12/15/2015Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
02/08/2016Reported from General Laws and Technology with amendment (8-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
02/10/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2016Read second time
02/11/2016Reading of amendment waived
02/11/2016Committee amendment agreed to
02/11/2016Engrossed by Senate as amended SB41E
02/11/2016Printed as engrossed 16101522D-E
02/12/2016Amendments by Senator Ebbin ruled germane
02/12/2016Ruling of Chair Not Sustained (19-Y 20-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Passed by temporarily
02/12/2016Floor substitute printed to Web only 16105515D-S1 (Ebbin)
02/12/2016Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (28-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Committee amendment reconsidered (25-Y 14-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Committee amendment agreed to (20-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Substitute by Senator Ebbin out of order 16105551D-S1
02/12/2016Reading of amendments waived
02/12/2016Amendments by Senator Ebbin-Chair ruled germane
02/12/2016Ruling of Chair Not Sustained - (19-Y 20-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Reengrossed by Senate as amended SB41E
02/12/2016Printed as reengrossed 16101522D-E2
02/12/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2016Passed Senate (20-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2016Placed on Calendar
02/17/2016Read first time
02/17/2016Referred to Committee on General Laws
02/17/2016Assigned GL sub: Subcommittee #4
02/25/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting (4-Y 2-N)
03/03/2016Reported from General Laws with substitute (14-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2016Committee substitute printed 16105987D-H1
03/07/2016Read second time
03/08/2016Passed by for the day
03/09/2016Read third time
03/09/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16105987D-H1
03/09/2016Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB41H1
03/09/2016Passed House with substitute (59-Y 38-N)
03/09/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (59-Y 38-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2016House substitute rejected by Senate (20-Y 20-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2016Chair votes No
03/10/2016Reconsideration of House substitute agreed to by Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2016House substitute agreed to by Senate (21-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2016Title replaced 16105987D-H1
03/11/2016Enrolled
03/11/2016Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB41ER)
03/11/2016Signed by President
03/11/2016Signed by Speaker
03/16/2016Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 3/16/16
03/16/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016
03/30/2016G Vetoed by Governor
04/20/2016Motion to pass in enrolled form rejected (21-Y 18-N)
04/20/2016Requires 26 affirmative votes to pass in enrolled form

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 9 clips in all, totaling 56 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. I HAVE REVIEWED THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY REGARDING THE GERMANENESS AND MY RULING IS THAT THEY ARE GERMANE. THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY. I APOLOGIZE, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU -- YOUR RULING IS WHAT, SIR? MY RULING IS THAT THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS ARE GERMANE. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY APPEAL THE RULING OF YOU ON THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON EITHER SIDERATING MY RULING? -- REGARDING MY RULING? HOW WOULD THE QUESTION BE PHRASED BUT YOU IN PRESENTING IT BEFORE THE BODY? THE QUESTION WILL BE SHALL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR BE SUSTAINED. INQUIRY, MR. PRESIDENT, IF IN FACT SOME OF US WERE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE RULING THAT YOU MADE THAT THIS IS GERMANE WE WOULD VOTE NO, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? THAT WOULD BE MY INTERPRETATION. SPEAKING TO THE MOTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO RESPECTFULLY VOTE NO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR BE SUSTAINED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RECORD THEIR VOTES AYES, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 19, NOS 20. THE RULING OF THE CHAIR IS NOT SUSTAINED. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ENGROSS THE BILL AND ADVANCE IT ON TO ITS THIRD READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE BILL IS ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON?

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. NOW I WOULD ASK THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND DISPENSE WITH THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE RULES BE SUSPENDED AND THE THIRD CON CONSTITUTIONAL READING BE DISPENSED WITH. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 39, NOS 0. AYES 39, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THAT SENATE BILL 41 PASS AND SPEAKING TO THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, SENATE BILL 41 IS A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CLERGY OR LICENSED MINISTER THAT PERFORMS MARRIAGES TO BE ABLE TO ONLY SOLEMNIZE THOSE MARRIAGES OF THE DEEP HELD BELIEFS THAT THEY HAVE AND THAT ANY ORGANIZATION THAT THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH OR ACCOMMODATION OF THEIR FACILITIES WOULD ONLY HAVE THE -- THEY WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH THOSE FACILITIES WITH THE DEEP HELD BELIEF OR THE MARRIAGES THAT THEY FEEL DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH THEIR FAITH. THERE IS IN THIS BILL IT WOULD NOT RISE TO ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OR LIABILITIES IF THEY REFUSE THE MARRIAGE TO PERFORM AND THERE IS NOTHING -- I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR -- THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT CHANGES ANY CURRENT LAW THAT PRODEBTS THE PROTECTED -- THAT PROTECTS THE PROTECTED CLASSES UNDER FEDERAL LAW THAT CANNOT BE DISCRIMINATED WITH AND I HOPE IT WOULD BE THE PLEASURE OF THE BODY TO PASS THE BILL. SENATOR McEACHIN. WILL THE NOR FROM GRAYSON YIELD FOR A QUESTION. I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THROUGHOUT THE SECTION THAT HE PROPOSES THE WORD ACCOMMODATIONS APPEARS. WOULD THE SENATOR TELL ME WHAT HE INTERPRETS AN ACCOMMODATION TO MEAN WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THIS CODE SECTION. SENATOR GRAYSON? I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT ACCOMMODATIONS WOULD BE ANY FACILITIES OR ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE CAMPUSES OF ANY CHURCH OR ANY ORGANIZATION THAT PERFORMS THESE MARRIAGES, PERFORMS A MARRIAGE, THEIR BUILDINGS OR THEIR SERVICES THAT THEY RENDER FOR THAT. THE SENIOR SENATOR. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I WOULD YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK THE SENATOR THEN WHY THE WORDS THAT HE JUST USED ON THIS FLOOR DID NOT APPEAR IN THIS CODE SECTION BECAUSE ALL THIS SAYS IS ACCOMMODATIONS AND DOESN'T SAY WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED. IT COULD BE THE HILTON THAT THE CHURCH OWNS DOWN THE STREET. IT COULD BE ANYPLACE TO USE HIS TERMOLOGY OFF CAMPUS. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. ACCOMMODATIONS DESIGNED IN THE DICTIONARY SAYS A ROOM, A GROUP OF ROOMS, A BUILDING IN WHICH SOMEONE MAY LIVE OR STAY AND I WOULD SAY THE DEFINITION OF ACCOMMODATION IS PRETTY CLEAR. SPEAKING TO THE MEASURE, MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I FEEL LIKE WE ARE TRAVELING BACK IN TIME ALL IN AN EFFORT TO ALLOW A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION TO TAKE PLACE. MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME BE CLEAR. THERE IS NO ONE ON THIS SENATE FLOOR THAT BELIEVES THAT PEOPLE OF FAITH WHATEVER THAT FAITH IS OUGHT NOT TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE IT IN THE WAY THEY BELIEVE IF THEY WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACK FOLKS AND NOT ALLOW THEM IN THE CHURCH THEY CAN DO THAT. IF THIS HE WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY FOLKS OR PEOPLE DIVORCED AND NOT RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES THEY CAN DO THAT. WHAT THEY CANNOT DO IT EXTEND IT BEYOND THE CHURCH AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL DOES. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THROWN UP BEAUTIFUL WORDS LIKE MARRIAGE OR PUTS IN WORDS I CAN BARELY PRONOUNCE LIKE SOME SOLEMNIZATION. WE HAVE ACCOMMODATIONS IN THIS BILL AND SOME PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN STAY. THEY ARE HOTELS. THEY ARE ROOMS FOR RENT. THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THINGS THAT ARE IN LAWYERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, I KNOW THIS IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE BUT I'M NOT THE WITH UNTHAT BROUGHT IT TO THIS FLOOR AND NOW WE HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH IT. YOU ARE SAYING IF YOU A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF YOU CAN REFUSE TO GIVE PEOPLE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND DO I NEED TO TAKE US ALL THE WAY BACK? DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE CURSE OF HAND THAT FINDS ITS SO CALLED INTERPRETATION AGAIN SESSION WHERE NOAH GETS UP A SET AT HIS CHILDREN AND SAYS THE HAND SHALL BE THE SERVANT OF THEM ALL, I WILL NOT YIELD, MR. PRESIDENT. AND MR. PRESIDENT, OUT OF THAT CAME A FIRMLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF, A SINCERE RELIGIOUS BELIEF. PEOPLE JUST KNEW THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT IT THAT IS JUSTIFIES SLAVERY. THE CURSE OF HAM JUSTIFIES SLAVERY. A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND NOW WHAT ARE WE DOING? ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HOLD A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT IS COUNTER TO MY OWN, I GET THAT AND THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE ON THEIR CAMPUS BUT NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. IF THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN OWN A HOTEL AS A CHURCH AND BAN PEOPLE FROM TAHOE TELL WRITE THE BILL THAT WAY. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE DISJUNCTIVE, NOT CONJUNCTIVE. THERE IS AN "OR" IN THERE. WE ARE IF THE BUSINESS AS LEGISLATORS OF READING OUR WORK, THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY PUT ME IN MY PLACE WE WE MAT THE MAJORITY FOR THE BRIEF THREE WEEKS AND TOLD ME I NEED TO READ MY PLEADINGS. THIS IS NOT AS ADVERTISED. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT MARRIAGE. IT IS BEYOND THAT. MAYBE NOT INTENTIONALLY. BUT IT IS BEYOND THAT. AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE THE SINCERELY HELD BELIEF BELIEF THAT WHATEVER YOU ARE YOU ARE NOT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR FACILITIES. THEIR HOTELS. THEIR BOOK STORES. THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THIS IS NOT LIMITED TO THE CAMPUS. I INVITE THE SENATOR TO SO LIMIT IT BUT UNTIL THEN THIS IS A BAD BILL, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEFEATED. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM GRAYSON YIELD FOR A YES.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON YIELD FOR A YES. I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I WOULD ASK WHERE IN THE BILL DOES IT SAY THAT MARRIAGE CELEBRANTES JUDGES DO NOT HAVE TO PERFORM INTERACTIONIAL MARRIAGES BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN TEARILY HELD BELIEFS? THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT DOES EXEMPT THEM. I LIKE TO REFER TO 20-13 IS A SECTION OF THE CODE IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE LICENSED TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MARRY. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION. I WOULD YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. TO FOLLOW ON THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM HENRICO'S REMARKS, WOULD IT NOT BE ALLOWABLE BY SAYING THAT NO PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE AND THEN NO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AND SO FORTH SHALL BE REQUIRED TO DO X, Y AND Z. WOULD THAT NOT BE -- WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TO DENY OTHERWISE PROTECTED CLASSES IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICY OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO SAFEGUARD INDIVIDUALS FROM DISCRIME NATION INCLUDING PEOPLE OF COLOR WOULD IT BE ALLOWABLE TO DENY THOSE PEOPLE PERHAPS ACCESS TO A CHURCH HALL OTHERWISE RENTED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR X OR Y TYPE OF PEOPLE? THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CODE NOR TODAY CAN THEY DENY THAT OF A PROTECTED CLASS. THIS IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AND UNDER THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SIMPLY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE SINCERE HELD BELIEFS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MARRY A COUPLE OUTSIDE OF THAT BELIEF. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION. WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. IF I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN CORRECTLY BASED ON SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT ANYONE COULD REFUSE TO EITHER MARRY OR A GROUP COULD REFUSE TO PROVIDE THEIR ACCOMMODATIONS IF THEY SAID IT WAS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND I WOULD ASK FURTHER WOULD THE GENTLEMAN AGREE THAT THIS BILL WOULD GRANT ANY SITTING JUDGE OR JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF RECORD OR ANY SITTING JUDGE OF A DISTRICT COURT THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SOLEMNIZE A MARRIAGE ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHATEVER THOSE BELIEFS ARE. NO. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THAT HE HAVE JUST TRYING TO CONFUSE THE SECTION AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PROTECTED CLASS AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT IT STATES IN THE BILL AND A PERSON WHO IS LICENSED IF THE JUDGE IS LICENSED THEN YES, IF HE HAS A DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF AS I SAID IN COMMITTEE. YOU CAN'T -- AN INDIVIDUAL HAS A RELIGIOUS DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND IF YOU ARE WANTING THAT PERSON TO VIOLATE THAT, THEN YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE A SECTION OF THE -- OR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN'T BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING AS JEFFERSON WROTE AGAINST THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THAT ALL THESE QUESTIONS DIRECTED TOWARD DISCRIMINATION ARE NOT IN THIS SECTION, AND THAT IT IS JUST TRYING TO CONFUSE EVERYONE ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL DOES. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM -- SPEAKING TO THE BILL, SIR. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM GRAYSON. HE THINK HE CLARIFIED JUDGES WHO I CONSIDER PUBLIC ACTORS OF THE STATE COULD DISCRIMINATE ON CLOSELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THEY IN THE SAME CODE SECTION WITH ARE IT REFERS TO THE RELIGIOUS FIGURES IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT JUDGES ARE INCLUDED. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE STATE SHOULD NOT AND UNDER EXISTING LAW CANNOT FORCE CLERGY OR HOUSES OF WORSHIP TO PERFORM OR HOST MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WITH WHICH THEY HAVE RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS UNLESS THEY HOLD OUT THE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I THINK THE BILL IS CLEARLY UNNECESSARY. VIRGINIAS ARE PROTEXTED BY THE VIRGINIA STATUTE ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FURTHER BY THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT FORBIDS FROM BURDENING FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. IT WOULD GRANT ANY JUDGE IT SAYS JUDGE IN THE CODE SECTION AUTHORITY TO REFUSE ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THESE ARE JUDGES PAID BY THE COMMONWEALTH, AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTED BY THIS BODY. THESE ARE PUBLIC PEOPLE WE ARE ALLOWING TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON PRIVATELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. IT SANCTIONS DISCRIMINATION BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. THE SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. WE ARE THE BIRTH PLACE OF THE STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND ENJOY ONE OF THE RICHEST HISTORIES OF ANY STATE AND CORE TO WHO WE ARE AS A COMMONWEALTH. PROPOSALS AND LICENSES TO DISCRIMINATE DESECRATE THE THINGS THEY CLAIM TO PROTECT. OUR RICH HISTORY CONTINUED AS THE BODY VOTED TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION YET IT REMAINS ILLEGAL TO HAVE A MARRIAGE AT NOON, BE FIRED AT NOON AND EVICTED AT 4:00. WE CANNOT STOP WHAT YES JEFFERSON CALLED THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND AND STRONG BELIEF THAT LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS MUST KEEP PACE WITH THE TIMES. THIS WOULD BE CLOAKED UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX. THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. IT WAS SUCH AN ONER TO BE IN THIS ROOM AND HEAR PEOPLE WHO I RESPECT AS MUCH AS THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA AND THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RICHMOND ARTICULATE ON SOMETHING THAT THEY CARE ABOUT THIS MUCH. AND I MEAN THAT. AND I THINK THAT THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA'S ARGUMENT A IT IS RELATES TO THE FACT THAT WE STAND HERE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WHERE JEFFERSON ECEPTIONLY LINED OUT WHAT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY MEANT FOR A COMMONWEALTH BEFORE THE NATION HAD SUCH A RULE IS A PERTINENT POINT. BUT WHAT NOBODY HAS DONE IS READ WHAT WAS THE LOGICAL OFFSHOOT OF JEFFERSON'S OPINIONS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND EVOLVED INTO WHAT BECAME THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CON U. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH I WILL IF YOU WILL HUMOR ME READ CONGRESS MEANING A LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF READING, MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE CURSE OF HAMM WHICH WAS USED BY PEOPLE TO JUSTIFY A SLAVE TRADE AND I HAVE ALSO DONE READING ON THE REPUTATION THAT IS HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD THAT THE CURSE OF HAMM WAS USED BY ANY LEGITIMATE RELIGIOUS OFFICIAL TO JUSTIFY SUCH A THING. MARTIN LUTHER HIMSELF REFUTED THE ASSERTION THAT THE CURSE OF HAMM MADE SLAVERY OKAY. WILLIAM WILBERFORCE FOUGHT AND RISKED ESSENTIALLY HIS HONOR, ABRAHAM LINCOLN DISMISSED ON ITS FACE ANY ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FACE OF HAMM AND ONE OF WHOM WAS CHRISTIANS AND I WILL DIE GRES FOR A MOMENT AND SAY THERE IS BUT ONE MAIN RELIGION IN THE WORLD AND ENTIRE PORTIONS OF A TEXT DEVOTED TO HOW ONE SHOULD TREAT THE SLAVES THEY OWN BACK ON TOPIC AND IN CHRISTIANITY IT DOES THAT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT STOPPING PEOPLE FROM MARRYING EACH OTHER. THIS IS ABOUT STOPPING PEOPLE FROM FORCING OTHERS TO MARRY THEM. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE WORD ACCOMMODATION USED IN THIS BILL, AND I WOULD SUBMIT IT TO THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON BUT HE WAS UNDER QUESTIONING IF WE PULL THAT WORD OUT, WILL YOU SUPPORT IT? I'M SINCERE? MR. PRESIDENT, THE WORD ACCOMMODATION HAS NO FORCE OF LAW. THE WORD PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION HAS A GREAT DEAL OF FORCE LAW. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE HAD MASSIVE RESISTANCE AND RACISM ENSHRINED IN NOT JUST PEOPLE'S RECESSES OF THEIR MINDS BUT RESTAURANT COUNTERS AND HOTELS, RIGHT? THAT IS A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. THE BOARD PUBLIC IS NOT HERE. SO WHAT WE HAVE THEN IS TRULY STATE MANDATED IDEOLOGICAL COERCION. A CONSENSUS OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED BY RULE OF LAW AND WE HAVE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO STIFLE THE VOICE OF DISSENT SPONSORED BY THE STATE. CANDIDLY, MAYBE I WILL GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE, WHAT ON EARTH IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE LOVING VERSUS VIRGINIA, AND SOME HORRIFIC PREJUDICIAL PRACTICES IN THE PAST IS THE STATE DOING INVOLVED IN THE ARENA OF MARRIAGE ANYWAY? BECAUSE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE THAT THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON SEEKS TO ADDRESS IS WE ARE ABOUT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE, INDEED, THE ACT OF PERFORMING A MARRIAGE, NOT GETTING MARRIED, BECOMES A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND WE TELL THE CATHOLIC PRIEST OR THE BAPTIST MINISTER OR THE MUSLIM IMAN OR THE ORTHODOX JEWISH RABBI YOU MUST A MARRY THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE PERFORMANCE IS AN ACCOMMODATION AND THEN JEFFERSON'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS DEAD. I'M STANDING UP HERE SAYING WHEN WE TELL CHURCHES WHO THEY HAVE TO MARY WE DESTROYED THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AND EXERCISE REVEREND RELIGIONAS WE CHOOSE. I WILL CLOSE WITH THIS AND BE REDUNDANT, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION NOR PROHIBITING THE PREEXERCISE THERE OF. WE START MAKING PRIESTS AND MUSLIM IMANS AND JEWISH ARE ORTHODOX RABBIS MARRY THOSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BASED ON THEIR RELIGION WE HAVE DESTROYED, DESTROYED RELIGIOUS TREE DOM. WILL THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM YIELD FOR A QUESTION? HE YIELDS, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT, I WAS INTERESTED TO HEAR HIM TALK ABOUT HOW THE CURSE OF HAMM HAD BEEN REFUTED BY AND REALLY IN ANCIENT TIMES COMPARED TO WHERE WE ARE NOW BY A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT BELIEVE LIKE THE RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS BELIEVED DID NOT HAVE A DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF? THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM. I WOULD SAY THIS. IT HAS BEEN USE THE I THINK CANDIDLY TO ATTACK MY FAITH TO SAY YOUR FAITH JUSTIFIED SLAVERY. THE PEOPLE WHO PHILOSOPHIZED ON WHAT I BELIEVED NEVER USED THAT. DID SOME PEOPLE, MR. PRESIDENT? YES, THEY DID,. I DISCLAIM THEM AND I AM ASHAMED OF THEM AND THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR ME AND MY FAITH AND DIDN'T SPEAK FOR MARTIN LUTHER OR WILLIAM MORRIS OR ABRAHAM LINCOLN. FURTHER QUESTION. SENATOR. I WILL TRY TO DO A BETTER JOB OF ARTICULATING MY QUESTION. DOES THE MERE FACT THERE WERE RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS WHO THOUGHT THAT THE CURSE OF HAMM WAS A CROCK TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE THERE DURING THAT TIME THAT HELD A DEEPLY RELIGIOUS CONVICTION IT WAS NOT A CRACK AND IT WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR SLAVERY? DOES THAT AFFECT THE QUALITY OR DEPTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO BLEW BELIEVE THAT CONTRARY TO MARTIN LUTHER. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD MUTTER THESE WORD ON THE FLOOR. I COULD ASK THE QUESTION DOES THE FACT THAT MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ THINK ONE RACE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T? THERE WERE RACISTS WHO USED A SCRIPTURE TO JUSTIFY ABHOR RENT BEHAVIOR BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM AND IT WAS USED AND I WOULD CON CEDE THAT AND I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME TO SUGGEST THAT I MIGHT ADHERE THAT BECAUSE I MIGHT ADHERE TO THE SAME FAITH THAT SOMEBODY SOME NUMBER OF YEARS AGO USED THAT TO JUSTIFY A HORRIBLE YONG. I HAD MY VOICE BACK AND NOW I LOST IT AGAIN. THE SENIOR SENATOR. I APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, AND AFTER THIS I WILL SIT DOWN AND VOTE. THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM AND I ARE NOT ABLE TO COMMUNICATE. I AM NOT ASKING THE QUESTIONS TO RIGHT MAN AND PERHAPS HE IS NOT HEARING THEM IN THE RIGHT MANNER. I WILL SAY SIMPLY THERE. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE CURSE OF HAMM WAS AN ACCEPTED RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OR BELIEF AND THAT WAS USED TO JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATION. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. AND I DON'T CERTAINLY MEAN TO -- I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT ANYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER BELIEVES THAT TODAY. MY POINT IS THIS -- THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM AND THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY. NOBODY DISAGREES WITH THE NOTION THAT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO PERFORM IT. BUT THIS BILL GOES BEYOND THAT. THERE IS AN "OR" IN THERE AND AFTER THE OR FOLLOWS THE WORDS FACILITIES, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS. AND THAT PUTS IN THE DISJUNCTIVE. NOT LIKE YOU ARE SAYING CONNECTING THE FACILITIES WITH THE MARRIAGE OR ACCOMMODATIONS THROUGH THE USE OF THE WORD AND. YOU ARE USING THE WORD OR. I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM IT IS NOT QUALIFIED BY THE WORD PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. JUST SAYS ACCOMMODATIONS. AND I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT MAKES MAKESUNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE TE IS ANOTHER CLAUSE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HONOR CALLED INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IT IS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT MANY, MANY DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES WERE STRUCK DOWN. YOU CAN BE AS DISCRIMINATORY AS YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. THIS BRINGS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FACILITIES, ACCOMMODATIONS. IT IS NOT THE CON JUNCTIVE. IT IS THE DISJUNCTIVE. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX, SENATOR SASLAW.

Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield): IT IS INTERESTING THE EDUCATION YOU GOT WHEN I FIRST HEARD THIS TERM CURSE OF HAMM I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ON A PLATE BACK THERE IN THE ROOM OFF THE CHAMBER. AND THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU GOT FROM EATING THAT STUFF. I GUESS NOT. I GUESS IT REFERS TO SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE. LEARN SOMETHING EVERY DAY, DON'T YOU? WILL THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON RISE? I WANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I AM VOTING ON HERE.

[Unknown]: WOULD THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON YIELD FOR A QUESTION.

Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield): I WILL YIELD.

[Unknown]: YOU USE THE TERM SENATOR McEACHIN MENTIONED ACCOMMODATIONS. LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS -- A GAY COUPLE GOES INTO THE HILTON HOTEL TO GET A ROOM, THE CLERK AT THE DESK SEEING OBVIOUSLY WHAT THE SITUATION IS CAN HE REFUSE TO RENT THEM A ROOM? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU,. THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL. BRIEFLY AND I WILL CALL THE QUESTION MYSELF IF IT IS OKAY. I'M SORRY. IF YOU LOOK UP PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DEFINITION YOU GET A LEGAL DEFINITION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. THE WORD PUBLIC MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE AND GOES TO THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX'S QUESTION AND THAT IS YOU MAY NOT EFUSE TO AND IT IS THE LAW AND IT SHOULD BE BUT THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION ON THE FIRST PAGE OF ACCOMMODATION. THE WORD PUBLIC IS ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT,. THAT IS FINE. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON DID YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL -- MR. PRESIDENT, IF EVERYONE IS DONE, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST -- WE DO HAVE ONE MORE BUT YOU ARE WELCOME. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. YES, MR. PRESIDENT. I APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING TWICE BUT THINGS WERE STATED THAT I FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO. NO ONE IS FORCING A PRIEST TO MARRY DIVORCED PEOPLE AND NO ONE IS FORCING A MINISTER TO MARRY PEOPLE YOUNG AND OLD OR DIFFERENT IN AGE AND NOBODY IS FORCING A RABBI TO MARRY AN INTERFAITH COUPLE. TWO THINGS MOST TROUBLING AND AT THE END OF THE BILL IT SAYS IT IS DECLARE RATIVE OF EXISTING LAW AND IT IS NOT. SECTION 20-25 TALKS ABOUT WHO CAN PERFORM A MARRIAGE. THAT ANY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE MAY ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A PERSON SO THIS WOULD GIVE THEM LICENSE TO DISCRIMINATE AND IN MOST CITIES OR COUNTIES THERE IS A FEW PEOPLE ON THE WEBSITE THEY DESIGNATE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET MARRIED CIVILLY AND FURTHER IT SAYS THE JUDGES CAN GET MARRIED. SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FUNDED WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS BE ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH DUTIES THEY WILL FULFILL AND WHICH SERVICES THEY WILL OFFER TO WHOM ESPECIALLY WHEN THE RESULT WOULD BE BLATANT DISCRIMINATION AND THE SERVICE TO BE DENIED INVOLVES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. IT WOULD ALLOW JUDGES TO REFUSE MARRIAGE CEREMONIES, THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM BUCKINGHAM, I DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. I JUST AM READING THE WORDS IN THE LAW AND THE WORDS IN THE CODE AND CHECKING WITH OTHER SMART LAWYERS WHAT IT MEANS. I KNOW WE CAN ARGUE EITHER SIDE OF AN ISSUE BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL BE BRIEF. BUT I WOULD JUST ASK THAT AND I WOULD REITERATE THAT I WOULD ASK THAT THE BODY SUPPORT THE BILL. THIS IS DEALING WITH PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE THIS DEEP HELD BELIEF THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND IF THEY WANT TO ONLY HONOR THAT, THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HAVE TO BE CIVILLY PROSECUTED OR CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IF THEY -- IF THEY DENY THOSE MARRIAGES. IN THE ARGUMENTS AND THE CONFUSION THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO THROW AT THIS BILL, THIS BILL REFERS TO 20-13 WHICH IS BASICALLY EXPLAINING THE LICENSING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO PERFORM THOSE MARRIAGES, 20-14 IS THE ONE DEALING WITH JUDGES. IT IS NOT REFERRED TO. 20-25 WAS BROUGHT UP AND IS NOT REFERRED TO IN THIS BILL. ONLY PROTECTING THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE THAT DEEP HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF. AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT DEEP HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF MEAN? I JUST WOULD QUOTE TO YOU THERE WAS MANY DIFFERENCES TO THE CURSE OF HAMM. I WOULD JUST QUOTE TO YOU WHAT THAT DEEP HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF IT BEHOLD I SET BEFORE YOU TODAY A BLESSING AND A CURSE. A BLESSING IF YOU OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD WHICH I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY. AND A CURSE IF YOU DO NOT OBEY IT. THAT IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS WHENNINGS AND CURSES -- BLESSINGS AND CURSES SET ABOVE THEM AND IF THEY DO THIS THEY


Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): NARROWLY TAILORED AS IT EXISTS NOW IN THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE. THE BILL SIMPLY PREVENTS ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION WHICH THEY SUPERVISE OR ANY INDIVIDUAL THEY EMPLOY, A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY, BASICALLY ANY CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, ANY SCHOOLS, ANY CLERGY MEMBERS, ALL OF WHOM HAVE TO BE BASED AROUND A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MARRIAGE, AND FURTHER DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY PENALTY AS PENALTY AS DEFINED IN THE BILL FOR THEIR BELIEF THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN THE UNION OF A -- ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, AND THAT IS WHAT THE BILL DOES, MR. SPEAKER, AND I WOULD MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MS. WATTS.

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): THANK YOU. I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN, WHEN I LOOK AT THE PENALTIES, I'M SEEING SCHOLARSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, LICENSE, ACCREDITATION, AND ALSO, SINCE IT COVERS ANYTHING SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED, OR ANY STAFF OPERATING IN SUCH ANY INSTITUTION, DOES THIS BILL, THEN, ALSO INCLUDE ANY RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE SCHOOL?

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEWOMAN THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, BE THEY K-12, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS OF HIGHER LEARNING.

[Unknown]: FURTHER QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THEN, DO I READ THE BILL CORRECTLY THAT IN ANY OF THOSE SETTINGS, AN EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN ANYBODY OTHER THAN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN CAN BE EXPRESSED IN ANY FORM AT ANY TIME? END OF QUESTION.

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEWOMAN, THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH EXPRESSION AS MUCH AS IT DOES WITH THE ABILITY OF THE STATE TO PENALIZE AN INSTITUTION OR INDIVIDUALS WORKING IN THAT INSTITUTION FOR HAVING THOSE BELIEFS. FINAL QUESTION? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): SO IF I INTERPRET THESE ANSWERS CORRECTLY, WOULD, THEN, AN INSTITUTION, AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WHO HAS AS PART OF ITS ADMISSIONS POLICY THAT CONFORMISTS TO THIS BELIEF IS WHAT THE MORAL CONVICTIONS, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, OF THIS INSTITUTION ARE, AND YOU MUST CONFORM TO THAT POLICY AND THEY WOULD USE THAT AS A BASIS OF NONADMISSION TO THE POLICY? IS THE RESULT OF THIS BILL THEN SAYING THIS COULD NOT AFFECT IN ANY WAY GRANTS TO THAT INSTITUTION BY THE STATE OR SCHOLARSHIPS OR ACCREDITATION?

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEWOMAN THAT OF COURSE THERE ARE COUNTLESS WAYS IN WHICH AN INSTITUTION OR INDIVIDUAL WORKING FOR THAT INSTITUTION OF WHICH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS MAY MANIFEST, AND CERTAINLY THAT IS ONE OF THEM.

[Unknown]: IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THEN -- MR. SPEAKER, I ASSUME THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION WAS YES, IT COULD. ARE YOU ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION? QUESTION MARK. I WANT CLARITY ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL. THE GENTLEMAN -- DOES THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I YIELD.

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS I ASSUME, THEN, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ASKED PREVIOUSLY WAS THAT YES, YOU COULD -- THAT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION CAN MAKE AS A CONDITION OF ADMISSIONS TO THAT INSTITUTION A SHARED BELIEF THAT A MARRIAGE SHOULD ONLY BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, AND YOU COULD DENY ADMISSIONS, AND THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO PENALTY ALLOWED AS FAR AS ACCREDITATION OF THAT INSTITUTION, SCHOLARSHIPS, OR GRANTS.

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEWOMAN, SINCE SHE DIDN'T APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND MY ANSWER PREVIOUSLY, THAT OF COURSE THAT IS CORRECT, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS HAVE THESE DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, THAT THEY DO MEAN SOMETHING TO THESE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, JUST AS HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, THAT WE RESPECT THOSE BELIEFS, AND YES INDEED, AS I USE THE EXAMPLE ON THE FLOOR PREVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TUITION ASSISTANCE GRANTS THAT GO TO PLACES LIKE LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THINGS LIKE ITS HOUSING POLICY, THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO EXIST IN THEIR HOUSING POLICY, AND SO I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN BE ANY MORE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL IS SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH, OTHER THAN TRYING TO PROTECT THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS FROM BEING PENALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR HOLDING THEM.

[Unknown]: I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THE CLARITY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SIMON.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE BILL?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE BILL. THE PROBLEM WITH THE BILL IS, AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM SHENANDOAH JUST ADMITTED, THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING ONE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF. ALL RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAD TO DO THIS AND WHY THIS BILL GOT NARROWER. IT WAS A MASH UP OF THE BILL BEFORE, MOVED IT AROUND, CALLED IT A DEFINITION OF A PENALTY AND SAID YOU CAN'T CALL IT A PENALTY, CAN'T DO ALL THESE THINGS BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE BILL, WE JUST ARRANGED IT, DID IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, AND WE TOOK OUT THE STUFF ABOUT PREMARITAL SEX AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WE GOT TO DOWN TO ONE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IS A FORM OF ESTABLISHMENT, ALL WE ARE ESTABLISHING A STATE RIGHT? RELIGION. WE ARE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO PREFER THIS SPECIFIC SET OF BELIEFS ABOVE ALL OTHERS SM WOO ARE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THIS SAME PROTECTION TO PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN MARRY, RIGHT? MY RABBI DOES MARRIAGES BETWEEN SAME SEX COUPLES. THERE'S NO PROTECTION FOR THAT. THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WE COULD CHOOSE TO PROTECT. BUT WE SAY THERE'S ONE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT IS SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHER PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE IT SPECIFIC PROTECTION, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE THE CASE LAW TO THE BODY. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IT. THE REASON YOU GUYS HAD TO NARROW THIS IS BECAUSE NOBODY IS SAYING ANY PASTOR SHALL HAVE TO MARRY ANYBODY THEY DON'T WANT TO. THAT'S NEVER BEEN THE CASE, THERE ARE CATHOLIC PRIESTS THAT WON'T MARRY PEOPLE THAT ARE DIVORCED, RABBIS THAT WON'T MARRY INTER-FAITH COUPLE, PEOPLE THAT WON'T MARRY PEOPLE AFTER SUNDOWN FRIDAY NIGHT AND NOBODY HAS EVER TRIED TO MAKE THOSE PEOPLE MARRY ANYBODY THEY DON'T WANT TO BUT YOU HAVE TO NARROW THIS, BECAUSE IF YOU GOT ANY BROADER YOU'D FIND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE BASIS OF ALL KINDS OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE PAST. IF PEOPLE SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. YOU HAD TO NARROW IT, AND SAY WELL, WE DON'T MEAN THAT, WE ONLY BELIEVE THAT IF MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, NOT THE SPECIFIC BELIEF WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AND THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY THE FLAW WITH THE BILL AND THAT CREATES AN ESTABLISHMENT PROBLEM AND I WOULD URGE THE BODY, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, NOT PASS THIS BILL. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHALL.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): MR. SPEAKER, ADDRESSING

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE THE BILL? FLOOR.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE REFERS TO FUNDING SUCH AN INSTITUTION DIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC MONEY FOR THE SUPPORT AND PRACTICE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE THINGS. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NO MONEY THAT IS GOING THIS WAY. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT JEFFERSON THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, AND MADISON THOUGHT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WAS. WHAT'S VERY CURIOUS HERE IS THAT OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL COMES FROM AN EFFORT TO WANT TO EXCISE OUT FROM THE PUBLIC SQUARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ACCEPT AND PRACTICE ONLY WHAT MARRIAGE WAS UNDERSTOOD FOR MILLENIA, AND TO IMPOSE A PENALTY SUCH AS REMOVAL OF A TAX STATUS OR SAYING THAT YOU ARE INELIGIBLE FOR A GRANT, OR MAYBE EVEN A SCHOOL WOULD BE INELIGIBLE TO SATISFY THE COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAWS BECAUSE THEY TEACH THAT ONLY A MAN CAN MARRY A WOMAN. NOW, THAT'S HOW FAR THIS IS GOING TO GO, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS WOULD LIKE TO PUSH THIS TO THAT DEGREE. SO MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT WHAT HAS BEEN THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING FOR PEOPLE, AS DIFFERENT AS NAPOLEON, OR SOCRATES OR ANYBODY, MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE AND PUNISH WITH THE PUBLIC POWER OF EITHER TAX STATUS OR LICENSURE OR RECOGNITION OR DERECOGNITION IN ANY WAY I THINK IS IMPROPER, BUT IT'S VERY TELLING AS TO HOW FAR SOME PEOPLE WANT TO GO WITH, QUOTE, THE FREEDOM TO MARRY.

[Unknown]: SHALL THE BILL PASS?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE


[Unknown]: GOVERNOR. SENATE BILL 41. THE SENATOR FROM GREY SON COUNTY, SENATOR CARRICO.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THAT SENATE BILL 41 BE PASSED IN THE ENROLLED FORM NOT WITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR AND SPEAK TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BODY THIS IS THE BILL THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND WAS DEBATED VERY MUCH ON THIS FLOOR ABOUT THE PASTOR PROTECTION ACT AND I KNOW THE VETO BY THE GOVERNOR AND HAVE READ A LOT OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE BILL AND ABOUT VIRGINIA'S ECONOMY TO BUILD AN ECONOMY AND TO BASICALLY NOT BE DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ACT. I WILL JUST KIND OF POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THIS BILL IS AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT PASTORS FROM HAVING TO GO AGAINST THINGS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT ARE OF A DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND UNLIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE GOVERNOR IS POINTING OUT THAT HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THIS IS BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE MERE FACT THAT A PASTOR WHO BELIEVES MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND HAS DOCTRINAL BELIEF AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WITHIN THEIR ORGANIZATION CAN AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE -- FROM BEING PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY OR CIVILLY FROM THAT PROSECUTION AND IT STRENGTHENS WHAT WE WOULD AGREE THAT SHOULD BE ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED BUT IT WILL STRENGTHEN THAT PROTECTION AND PROTECT THEM FROM HAVING TO FACE ANY CHARGES IF SOME WERE TO ARISE. AND I THINK IT IS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO SEND A MESSAGE TO OUR CLERGY ACROSS VIRGINIA THAT THEY WON'T BE TARGETED, THAT THEY WILL BE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, SOMETHING THAT OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON, SOMETHING THAT OUR FOREFATHERS AND EVERYTHING BEGAN HERE IN VIRGINIA TO PROTECT AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AND THE FACT THAT THEY FLED RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TO COME HERE. AND TO BE ABLE TO STAND ON THOSE AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD BELIEFS. BE THE PLEASURE OF THIS BODY TO OVERRIDE THE VETO AND TO PASS THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): I WOULD ASK THAT WE SUSTAIN THE VETO. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH AND I WILL TRY AND BRIEFLY SUM RYDER. THE BILL WOULD PROVIDE A LICENSE TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SAME SEX COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES AND COULD BE SEEN TO ALLOW FOR DISCRIMINATION BY SCHOOLS OR HOSPITALS THAT ARE RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED. ANY LEGITIMATE PROTECTION THAT ARE SOUGHT BY S.B. 41 ARE DUPLICATIVEFY THE CON STICTION OF VIRGINIA AND THE VIRGINIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT AND ONE OF THE THINGS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS ON THE LAST TWO LINES OF THE BILL IT REALLY PROTECTS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE AND THEY ARE ALREADY PROTECTED MARRIAGE IS OR SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IT OFFERS NO SIMILAR PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT PROVIDES FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY. AND SIMILAR LEGISLATION HAS BEEN BAD FOR BUSINESS IN OTHER STATES. AND I WOULD CONTEND THAT PASSING THIS BILL WOULD BE BAD FOR BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA. WITH THAT I WOULD ASK THAT WE SUSTAIN THE VETO.

[Unknown]: OKAY, THE NO ARE FROM ROANOKE CITY, SENATOR EDWARD.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): I URGE THE BODY TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO AND ASSOCIATE MY REMARKS WITH THOSE OF OF THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. IF IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BILL DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT PASTORS, RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO PERFORM RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. THEY ARE PROTECTED ALREADY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT DOES NOTHING TO ADD TO THAT. WHAT IT DOES DO, HOWEVER, IS TO SEND THE WRONG SIGNAL. IT HURTS BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA. IT MAKES VIRGINIA LOOK LIKE IT IS NOT WELCOME TO PEOPLE. IT MAKES VIRGINIA LOOK HIKE IT IS NO THE WELCOME TO A THE LOT OF BUSINESSES IN PARTICULAR AND IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW OR TRIES TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION WITH REGARD TO EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE WHO ARE SIMPLY ENGAGED IN A CIVIL CEREMONY NOT A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY, SENATOR STANLEY.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY?

[Unknown]: YES.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): IF ONE IS TO VOTE IN FAVOR AND OVERRIDE THE VETO WOULD THAT BE A YAY NOTE OR NAY VOTE.

[Unknown]: YAY. YAY. YES. THANK YOU,IER. SIR. YAY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE BILL PASS IN THE ENROLLED FORM NOT WITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Comments

KAB writes:

This is blatantly discriminative legislation.

WM writes:

The supreme court ruling on same sex marriage already gives churches the right not to marry same sex couples.
I agree with this bill's stance on religious organizations. If a religious organization is discriminatory, I think they have a right to be, although I may not like that they hold those views.
On the other hand, individuals do not have a right to be. This is the part that is a problem for me: "no individual authorized to solemnize any marriage shall be required to do so". Generally a marriage is not recognized as legally valid unless it is solemnized, so this is just a backdoor method of trying to make same sex marriage illegal in the Commonwealth. This sounds like that County Clerk problem in Kentucky all over again. You can't deny same sex couples the right to marry. If an individual takes a job where they have to marry people, that was their choice.

ACLU-VA LGBT Rights, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes this bill. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution already provides inviolable protection for any religious congregation or religious leader to refuse to solemnize marriages on behalf of the state that do not comport with their religious beliefs. This bill is a thinly veiled effort to legitimize broad-based discrimination against LGBT Virginians by private businesses providing wedding-related services.

Equality Virginia, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

Equality Virginia opposes this bill.

Right Way Forward Virginia writes:

Passing this legislation would help perpetuate a commonly-held misconception that equal treatment under law of same-sex couples who wish to marry imposes obligations on houses of worship and clergy. We oppose this bill.

ACLU-VA Legislative Agenda, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes this bill. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution already provides inviolable protection for any religious congregation or religious leader to refuse to solemnize marriages on behalf of the state that do not comport with their religious beliefs. This bill is a thinly veiled effort to legitimize broad-based discrimination against LGBT Virginians by private businesses providing wedding-related services.

Donna writes:

What an embarrassment of a governor we have. Someday each one who pushes this abhorrent agenda down the throats of conservatives will be held accountable. 5% of the population should not dictate the laws of this state or country.

Greg writes:

Donna, it is unclear to me how 5% of the population are dictating the laws. This is obviously a partisan bill as can be determined by looking at the voting record. It only passed the senate by a single vote and governor disagrees with it on its merits. He is not siding with the 5%, but rather with the nearly 50% who voted against it.