Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Protests
Senators Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, McMorrow, Klinefelt, Irwin, Cherry, Bayer, Shink, Chang, McCann, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Hertel, Brinks, Santana, McDonald Rivet, Singh, Anthony and Wojno, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Runestad to Senate Bill No. 4.
Senator Moss moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Moss’ statement, in which Senators Geiss, Polehanki, McMorrow, Klinefelt, Irwin, Cherry, Bayer, Shink, Chang, McCann, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Hertel, Brinks, Santana, McDonald Rivet, Singh, Anthony and Wojno concurred, is as follows:
If the Senator keeps opening the door, I’m going to keep walking through it—and this is my “no” vote explanation. As mentioned, this amendment deals with, among other items, protections to marriage. As previously stated, this amendment is unnecessary because government cannot intervene with religious ceremony, including marriage, but I do want to thank the Senator for bringing up this amendment on marriage because it allows me to talk briefly about the absolutely shameful way this state in the past has allowed religion to discriminate against LGBTQ people outside the walls of a religious institution.
In 2004, Michigan approved the harshest marriage ban in the country—not even civil unions were allowed. During this period of time, however, rabbis and other clergy recognized, sanctioned, and even would perform same-sex marriages according to their sincerely-held religious beliefs. But your religion wouldn’t allow them so therefore yours prevailed to discriminate against religious people like me. Gay people couldn’t even get married in a secular ceremony inside a city hall performed by a clerk because your religion wouldn’t allow it. So when you use religion only to discriminate against LGBTQ people but never to uplift LGBTQ people, I have no interest in putting this language in the Civil Rights Act. The current interpretation of law is sufficient. I request a “no” vote.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, assumed the Chair.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: