… legislators insert language making it more explicit that churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions would get to decide whether they perform same-sex marriages. Says Lynch: ““If the Legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the Legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it. We can and we must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.” The governor points to the language in Connecticut and Vermont passed as an example of the religious declarations he wants.
So how does it affect us normal folks. Well, for instance, “the change … would only give a legal protection to individuals working directly for a religious organization or an entity that a religious group owns or controls … [but would not] permit a self-employed photographer or caterer to refuse to work because a same-sex marriage ceremony violated their own religious beliefs.”
Rep. Jim Splaine, the bill’s primary sponsor, says this is good news. Now the House will need to pass a third version of the same-sex marriage bill while the Senate inserts an amendment in an existing bill in front of legislators. The bills as they stand still need the signatures of Speaker of the House Terie Norelli and Senate President Sylvia Larsen; it’s likely they will hold off signing them until the bills meet Lynch’s requirements.
If all goes according, the bill would update the state’s 2008 civil unions law, automatically converting civil unions to full-blown marriages on Jan. 1, 2011. Oh, and of course New Hampshire would recognize legal same-sex marriages from other states.
Here’s Lynch’s full statement:
The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides. My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.
In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.
Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination.
At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term ‘civil union’ to ‘civil marriage.’ Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change.
I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.
I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.
Throughout history, our society’s views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.
That is what I believe we must do today.
But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals. The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs. “But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.
I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.
This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.
This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.
If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it. We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.
I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.
So what language does Lynch want attached? Here it is verbatim:
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith.
Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.
II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire
III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.
IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.
PA
The gov’s demands are fair, I think, and this sets a good precedent for states considering marriage equality in the future. An early congrats to New Hampshire!
D-Sun
Sounds fair to me.
But, and maybe I’m wrong, can’t churches already decide what couples they do and don’t want to marry?
condenasty
@ D-Sun
Yes, but this frees them from any legal ramifications based on discrimination.
ajax
But if a ‘mo works for a religious organization, his/her employer can refuse to recognize the spousal relationship? Is that how that works?
Zakakaka
Fair enough….civil marriages should be the only ones with legal validity, that´s the way it is in many countries in Europe, it also strengthens the principle of separation State/Church. If only civil marriages are valid religious organizations would have to recognize them whether they want or not, period.
JBaritone
What worries me is paragraph II. Many hospitals are faith-based non-profits, and this gives them a free pass to deny insurance benefits.
Andrew Triska
@JBaritone: No, in paragraph 1, it states that they can only refuse services related to solemnizing a marriage. “In accordance with this section” in paragraph 2 basically means “in relation to solemnizing marriages as mentioned above.”
joes_brat1
One small correction to this statement:
“If all goes according, the bill would update the state’s 2008 civil unions law, automatically converting civil unions to full-blown marriages on Jan. 1, 2011”.
All civil unions would be converted to marriage status as of January 1st, 2010 – not 2011.
Jake the libertarian
I don’t mind bending over backwards to make sure religious institutions can do what they want. Frankly I don’t want any government control of religious institutions. It also takes away that nagging little lie that the NOM assholes keep bitching about.
TANK
Churches and mosques and synagogues and all places of worship are already free to discriminate. I hope this guy gets cancer.
Chris
@condenasty:
This only allows relgious orgs to not provide services relating to the marriage itself, not the married people. So halls, wedding stuff, plus marriage counseling, etc., but not treating someone in a Catholic hospital or accepting a family insurance plan etc. It also doesn’t mean they can fire a gay man from a job becuase he is civilly married.
What’s wrong with that? I would sacrafice my putative right to have my wedding at the Knights of Columbus or married housing at a seminary or marriage counseling from my priest to order to obtain civil equality.
Chris
@TANK:
That’s just nasty! and stupid! This guy is signing the equality bill even though he doesn’t have a personal stake in it. He said he needs to see it through a broader lens than just his own opinion. What more can we ask of people?
TANK
@Chris:
Religious bigotry is already protected without that language. Do you understand that much? This ultimatum is a meaningless political gesture with serious consequences if the legislature doesn’t comply to make him seem open minded and fair. It’s empty politicking with serious consequences if this charade doesn’t work out.
Once again, I hope he gets cancer and dies a slow humiliating death that destroys his family.
daftpunkydavid
@TANK: dude that’s wrong.
TANK
@daftpunkydavid:
What do you care? This doesn’t really concern you, anyway. It’s not your life.
PA
@TANK: Way to help the cause, dude. Do you really think acting as unnecessarily abrasive, ungrateful, and disrespectful as possible will help us win this fight? It’s not ideal that our rights are at the mercy of the votes and signatures of others, but that’s the way it is, and acting like a jerk will only alienate people who are in the position of making these choices.
TANK
@PA:
Ptooey! You’re weak and complacent. If you can’t see this for what it is, you’re just another self defeating self hating queer. Don’t call me “dude”…wtf is up with that bullshit? Okay, bro?
Now go straight act it up some more. After all, people are watching, and you’re never going to impress your father if you don’t ACT like the son he wanted.
dgz
please just ignore him; he’s trolling for a reaction. as always.
The Gay Numbers
The languge is fine. We already have a first amendment right to freedom of religion that this bill is basically restating. This is mostly repetitious of that idea. Anyone bitching (a la Tank) is not doing so because of the language, but because of his issue with religion. He wants to couch it as marriage, but that’s made a lie by the facts- namely, if the changed language doe snot change rights, then why does Tank care? Because tank is not worried here about just the rights.
AlwaysGay
We did it! *Cyber High Five*
We must put all our effort into getting the New York State Senate to vote YES on marriage equality.
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/Senatorbio.nsf/Public_MemberEmail?openform
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
Um, no. You’re missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with my concerns about toxic religious faith, but about a meaningless political show that could, through some technicality foreseen or unforeseen jeopardize marriage rights for gays as the wording is changed. Further, if it isn’t changed for whatever reason (and that’s a possibility, too), then he’ll veto it for entirely cosmetic reasons. It’s all for show…no substance whatsoever as religions already had the right to discriminate. Including that language is superfluous.
The Gay Numbers
I don’t care about how the saugage gets made tank. I am interested in what the law does. There is no technical or substantive way this language can do anything other than what the construction of the language says. You are being a Cassandra. This willb e my last response here on this. Maybe you should have done more than took the LSATs to understand the legal questions. If I am wrong, i am happey to listen to legal construction arguments that valid the over the top claims being made. But I frankly think this is a case of people makinga mountain out of something that’s less than a mole hill.
Faeelin
This is brilliant.
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
I carefully explained why it would be offensive to treat human rights as a political circus to get political points. If he were to sign the bill as is, you yourself admit that it would make no difference than when or if he signs it after the changes are made. That indicates that the language he’s demanding be included has nothing to do with the rights extended or the law itself.
Take more than my lsats? Listen carefully, you glorified paper collater, I know you don’t understand why making the legislature jump throug this needless additional hoop is offensive because you don’t understand a lot of things. Maybe if you took a logic class or two, you’d be able to comprehend other’s posts better than you have.
Cam
@ajax: you asked “”No. 4 · ajax
But if a ‘mo works for a religious organization, his/her employer can refuse to recognize the spousal relationship? Is that how that works?”
________________________________________________________
No, all this language is saying basically is that if a church doesn’t want to perform a same sex marriage, or rent out it’s proerty to a same sex marriage or provide any other church services connected with that, it doesn’t have to. If somebody working for the church is gay and married that is a different matter, they cannot invalidate a legal marriage of one of their employees. All this language is doing is preventing any lawsuits being filed against a religeous organization for refusing to provide services relating to same sex marriage. Without this language somebody could sue them and the church would most likely win, WITH this language the judge would dismiss the case and never let it go to trial.
Chris
@TANK:
You are as bad as anyone who would say those things to us.
Btw, I am in remission (at the moment) with Lymphoma myself, it’s really nothing to joke about or wish on anyone.
(Of course the ammendment will pass, he worked out the language with the sponsors of the bill so why are you so angry about it? It also gives other states a template to deal with religious objections effectively.)
TANK
But the religious objections are vacuous. Even without this added language, if someone were to sue, it would get tossed out before it ever made it to trial.
MTiffany
How is any of this fair? Why do religions which I don’t even believe in get to overrule my right to live my life?
Religion is just a cover for institutionalized bigotry, plain and simple.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Agreed.
If the law needs a useless byzantine clause to make the fundies think they are protecting their interests (even if they aren’t threatened) I don’t care.
If it results in getting the necessary votes and doesn’t water down the legislation it does not matter.
The end product is the important thing.
BTW Cassandra was CORRECT in her prediction that Troy would fall; her curse is that no one believed her.
Chris
@TANK:
Btw, Religious organizations do not have the right to deny the rental of their facilities at this point for civil unions/marriage (there is an NJ case is about this). This allows them to legally — that is a difference, a small difference, but a difference…that’s the same as the law in CT and VT — why are you so bent out of shape about it?
Were you looking forward to being wed at the Knights of Columbus and going to Father Flynn for marriage counseling when he throws his socks on the floor or forgets your birthday?
Chris
@MTiffany:
Not all of it is. The United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Chruch, Reform Judism, and other religions perform marriage for gay couples.
TANK
@Chris:
Oh fuck yourself, please. We’ll see how that NJ case is resolved. They do have the right to deny same sex couples the right to be wed in a churche or a mosque or a synagogue. If you’re talking about some ridiculous community center owned and operated by parties affiliated with but separate from the actual religious body in question, then it gets dicey. But if they’re not offering something for the general public’s consumption and or accomodation, then I See no issue you’re raising.
strumpetwindsock
@Chris:
Canada’s largest protestant congregation – United Church – also blesses same-sex marriages, as do the Unitarians, and some Anglicans (and I’m sure there are others).
TANK
Yay, canada’s largest church! In its entirety, canada’s population is 33 million. WTF does this have to do with anything?
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Just adding to the argument that not all churches discriminate against marriage equality (I mentioned it because the UC is our largest protestant denomination) , and the number is rising in both our countries.
If you disagree or don’t find it relevant that is fine; I was talking to Chris.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
No, not all of them, just the vast majority of them. I find it ridiculous.
TheJohnV
@TANK: Rather this demand by the governor is designed to keep the “bash back” from the right from reaching screech level. I think the governor is doing the right thing and in the right way. To ignore the right (whether they are already protected or not) would be a mistake. To include them with this redundant language undercuts their future objections.
TANK
@TheJohnV:
And to acknowledge their empty concerns gives them credibility they don’t deserve. But hey, he’s more progressive than our commander and chief on gay issues, so perhaps I should rescind my knee jerk “I hope he gets cancer”.
TANK
@TANK:
And by more progressive than obama, I mean in a different league entirely; given obama’s do nothing position, that’s not automatically a compliment.
TANK
in.
Chris
TANK:
The community center is the issue. That’s what the new langage is allowing them to deny gay couple in connection with their marriage specifically — big deal! What sort of difference does that make that you would wish the man a slow humiliating death?
Again — I have had stage 4 Lymphoma. It was “slow and humiliating”, and I wouldn’t wish it on you or anyone.
In fact the reason I survived it was not that I was compliant to it but that I was strong enough to be flexible in my approach to it and to know when to fight it all out and when to conserve my strength. It’s something I can now apply in other situations, like the fight for marriage equality.
TANK
@Chris:
Still protected with or without the language. It’s bullshit.
ProfessorVP
It’s pretty silly, actually. Lynch took the political temperature (not necessarily orally) and knows he can’t say,
“I agree with this and will sign it.” So he’s making a fuss over effin nothing and seeming to say, “They’re MAKING me sign this,” as if a ten-year-old. It is nothing new, and a lot of so-called progressives are equally uncomfortable under these kinds of circumstances. On one hand, there is the option of doing the right thing in an adult manner. On the other hand, idiots vote in elections.
strumpetwindsock
@Chris:
One of our larger churches (Anglican) turned down a visiting GLBT Choir rental last year. It would have been in the chapel, not the community centre, and I can’t remember the reason given – not that it matters.
The bottom line was though that for all that preacher’s diligence in keeping “dirty” money out of god’s coffers all he got was some very bad press. He looked universally like the dinosaur that he is, and the choir got to perform in a nicer church that was happy to rent to them.
With the marriage debate finished up here, nobody was even arguing in his favour that “church rights” need defending. He seemed kind of isolated and mean, actually.
And agreed, it is a secondary and much less important issue than marriage equality itself.
paulied
Is it necessary for the Catholic Church to have specific clauses written into existing anti-discrimination laws so that women cannot sue for discrimination for not being able to join the priesthood? Of course not. Freedom of religion trumps all other freedoms in these parts. Lynch is pandering to the religious wingnuts. I’ll take equality any way I can get it, however.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK: @ProfessorVP:
Actually I agree with both of you that it would be better NOT to do it that way.
I don’t think the state should be codifying religious discrimination. I wrote about this in the last NH piece. It would be better to deal with church concerns in a grandfather clause.
That said, I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to scuttle the Bill. And sure politics is childish; you have to learn how to coddle those babies to get the job done.
BrianZ
I don’t see anything wrong with his request. Yes, it’s obvious to everyone with more than 5 neurons firing in their head that religious institutions would never be required to perform a marriage they didn’t approve of. However, I’m quite convinced that a large portion of our population would fail the above mentioned litmus test. We have several examples of this right here on Queerty on a regular basis.
So, if it makes the religious feel more secure in their rights and diffuses a rally to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I say add the requested verbiage and let the bigots be bigots and let the queers start the celebrations!
The Gay Numbers
LOL@BrianZ regarding the 5 neurons litmus test. Sad, but true.
Bruno
Pandering, yes it’s pandering. But it’s not going to really change anything so I don’t care. I’m just happy he looked at the issue thoughtfully and fairly. The fact that this bill passed in New Hampshire at all is miraculous.
Raphael
The changes he wants are completely unnecessary and will have no effect on the law as it currently stands. The law has NEVER forced a church to recognize marriages it didn’t want to, and it never will.
Redundancy isn’t really a strong reason to object to including it though.
Bill Perdue
The solution of course is for the legislature to forbid cults from charging money to perform marriages. They can do it for free with no charges, no rent, no kickbacks from florists and caterers: no financial gain at all.
Their opposition to same sex marriage will vanish as they dash about inventing new sacraments to bilk the dummies, er, the faithful.
Instead of bread and wine they could invent sacraments based on the themes of ritual masturbation, anal sex, cunnilingus and fellatio, all of which have a rich religious tradition. That way they’d be honest prostitutes.
Chris
@strumpetwindsock:
Cool. Whether it’s rundundant or not, let them have it if they need it for cover or to make themselves feel more comfortable.
timncguy
@Chris: the case in NJ does NOT APPLY. The church in NJ accepts tax money to help them maintain that facility on the beach. And, they rent that facility out to other non church members. In order to receive the tax benefits they receive, they claim the facility is available for rental by the public. Once you do that, you can’t pick and choose WHICH members of the public. The lawsuit in NJ was based on the non discrimination in public accomodations laws. And, it had nothing to do with gay marriage as gay marriage isn’t legal in NJ.
The case in NJ would be no different than if the catholic church owned an apartment building in town and refused to rent to gay couples based on their religion. That’s illegal and that type of behavior should remain illegal in NH as well.
It’s all well and good if you want to be able to discriminate based on your religion. But, you better not take tax payer’s money (some of which comes from gay citizens) and also claim your facilities are open to the public while you are discriminating.
This whole point of adding religious exceptions is ridiculous if it extends outside of religious cerimonies in the church. When civil rights laws were passed the religious zealots were not in favor of them and claimed their religious beliefs required them to remain segregated. Did lawmakes go about writing exceptions into the law so they could continue to discriminate outside of their church in public accomodations? No, they didn’t
Should the YMCA be allowed to provide family discounts to straight families and deny them to gay families? NO WAY
Should a church that owns an apartment building be able to deny renting to a gay family? NO WAY. If you think they should, then should they also be allowed to deny renting to an inter-racial family if they claim their religion is against inter-racial marriage?
No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding for any couple gay or straight. Catholics deny weddings to straight couples all the time if one of the people is divorced. You don’t see them getting sued over it do you? Are straight baptists running around suing Catholic churches to marry them? No, they aren’t.
Should a florist who is open to the public be able to deny services to a gay couple? NO WAY. If they can, should they be able to deny services to a black couple if the owner’s church is part of the Arian Nation?
I guess the Knights of Columbus should be allowed to deny renting their hall to a gay couple for a reception, If and only if they ONLY rent to Catholic couples, as they are associated with the Catholic church. But, if they rent to the public in general, then they should be required to rent to ALL couples.
petted
While it is mostly trite political posturing, the 22nd clause is regarding insurance provided through a religious fraternal association is somewhat troubling though it seems unlikely any member of the community would seek insurance through such an organization, here’s a link to one if anyone’s curious ( https://www.thrivent.com/ ). I think that second clause is going a bit far however as I said I think it would have effectively no impact on the community though I wouldn’t mind slapping the NH governor for including this addendum particularly in regards to the religious fraternal insurance BS as a lot of those groups are far more of a business then they’d have you believe.
Attract Prosperity
This is another indication that the face of our country is changing. Not for better or worse.
I believe that the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man/woman relationship but it appears that more than a few governors don’t believe the same thing. I accept it, move on, and realize that many are liberated by this legislation.
I feel that my home state of NJ may be the next to enact same same-sex legislation.
Even though I don’t necessarily agree I applaud these governors for standing up for what they believe in. With any mass movement it’s always the first few that have to make the toughest s because they are subject to the most criticism.
Ryan
Mark
No church should be forced to perform same gender marriages. None.
Mike
Tank, you keep complaining about how adding that clause will codify religious bigotry… but bigotry (not just religious… not all religious people are bigots and not all bigots are religious… we are talking about two distinct groups that happen to occasionally overlap) is already codified in the 1st Amendment.
So, how is having a second law that has no effect on what has already been codified going to change anything? Right or wrong, we need to recognize which fights are worth fighting, and while I’d like nothing more than to see an end to bigotry (especially by those who would corrupt something so beautiful as faith and spirituality to suit their purposes), right now gaining civil rights is much more important. The bigots aren’t going anywhere, we’ll have time to deal with them… the politicians who are willing to support us could be out in a year for all we know… we need to take advantage of the support they’ll give us while we know they’re still here and on our side.
The governor’s request is reasonable.
Lymis
I’m not sure if this would or would not affect the New Jersey case about refusing to let the gay couple have their (non-recognized) union ceremony there.
On the face of it, it says that the church couldn’t get sued for refusing to allow its facility to be used (being owned and operated by a religious organization). On the other hand, it does not require that choosing not to allow gay people use of the facility have no repercussions.
They could be stripped of the special tax status based on their choice to discriminate without being penalized for it specifically – just as the Boy Scouts were allowed to discriminate, and cannot be sued for doing so, but are not immune from local laws that don’t allow them special treatment.
Most people would look at that as a “penalty” but in fact, not meeting the requirements for special treatment, and therefore being treated like everyone else, is not legally a penalty.
TANK
Tank, you keep complaining about how adding that clause will codify religious bigotry… but bigotry (not just religious… not all religious people are bigots and not all bigots are religious… we are talking about two distinct groups that happen to occasionally overlap)
Occasionally? Are you suggesting that if not for the religion inspired opposition to gay marriage and that constituency that this governor is responding to, this clause would still be added? Ridiculous. I assume that you’re not defending the clause, but your discontent with the entire law.
is already codified in the 1st Amendment.
Bigotry is codified in the first amendment? Whereabouts does the first amendment codify, explicitly, bigotry? Which federalist paper is this discussed in? Alexander Hamilton would disagree. I guess James Madison thought he had a vocal constituency of neo nazis that wanted the right to scream “kike” with a megaphone outside of a synagogue, and that’s why we have it, huh? I see no substantive difference between your suggestion and my example. The difference is that the first amendment applies to all and was included in the bill of rights to apply to ALL, and not just a select group of bigots to win cheap political points in an attempt to appear “fair” and “open minded”.
So, how is having a second law that has no effect on what has already been codified going to change anything?
Because it exists due to homophobic intolerance. That’s the difference. It lends the view that homosexuals aren’t worthy of equal rights or even to be viewed as people legitimacy with its inclusion as a direct result of that belief.
Right or wrong, we need to recognize which fights are worth fighting, and while I’d like nothing more than to see an end to bigotry (especially by those who would corrupt something so beautiful as faith and spirituality to suit their purposes),
Take WE out of there. I don’t consider you a fellow traveler, especially after that last bit of rubbish concerning your aiding and abeting religious extremism by yourself being one of them. Moderate=useless apologist, not someone who has any ability to make inroads or convince people of faith to be nice and not homophobic (that is a failed approach–completely failed). The moderate is viewed as a failed extremist by the extremist or even the conservative religionist.
right now gaining civil rights is much more important.
The way civil rights are obtained is also important. If racist opinions were included in the civil rights act of 1964, it would be similarly repugnant.
The bigots aren’t going anywhere, we’ll have time to deal with them… the politicians who are willing to support us could be out in a year for all we know… we need to take advantage of the support they’ll give us while we know they’re still here and on our side.
Yeah, anything we can get. I am not offended that we are getting marriage rights in NH, just at the way we have to sell out, essentially, to appease those who would deny us everything.
The governor’s request is reasonable.
Well, what you’re saying is that his request is as reasonable as the beliefs he’s responding to in making it. That’s indisputably false.
John D
I’m not too worried about the Governor’s proposed language. I’ve read it over a few times and I think it’s either redundant or unconstitutional.
If it truly covers nothing more than existing Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion (and that’s as far as I think it does), then it’s redundant. If they want to pass statutes that echo Constitutional provisions, it’s no skin off my nose.
If, on the other hand, it goes further than Constitutional guarantees, then it probably can be construed as an illegitimate endorsement of religion, in which case, it will be gone soon.
As it is, it seems to permit the Knights of Columbus to refuse to rent out their hall for a same-sex wedding (as they are a religious organization, open only to Catholic men), but would not allow a member of the Knights of Columbus to refuse to rent out the function space in a hotel he owned.
If duplicating existing law gets us rights we deserve, I’m all for it.
Mike
@TANK:
OK, I will rephrase one thing… I should have said Tolerance of bigotry is codified in the 1st amendment.
And this provision is specific to religious bigotry… but I know atheists who oppose gay marriage and Mormons who support it… in the grander scheme of things bigotry knows no religious boundaries.
schlukitz
@Mark:
“No church should be forced to perform same gender marriages. None.”
Why is this being tossed into the ring? Your comment is moot. No Church has been asked to do so. This is about secular marriage, not religious marriage.
Can you name for us a specific instance in which a church has been forced to perform a same gender marriage?
TANK
@Mike:
But certain types of bigotry can pick out religious sentiments better than others. For example, accuracy in predicting some religious affiliation with a homophobic attitude is pretty spot on, and the same with sexist attitudes, as well. This indicates that while one need not be sexist and religious (jains, for example…but other religions are inextricably sexist like islam and christianity; it’s part of that religion for women to be subjugated and hence the reason why it’s so commonly preached and practiced in those religions), it’s not entirely distinct.
TANK
@TANK:
So some forms of bigotry and discrimination do, in fact, “know” religious boundaries. I could have said the same thing about slavery and racism in the south, too…being justified by the “good book”. Good indicators–they were, anyway.
ProfessorVP
@schlukitz: @schlukitz:
The non-issue of gays marching up to ministers and priests, stun gun ready, forcing them to perform a marriage ceremony,
isn’t going to fade away, and don’t expect it to. It is the reddest of herrings, a dumb, phony non-entity invented to make points and hoodwink the gullible.