When New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch last week told legislators he would sign into law same-sex marriage, he did so with one stipulation: Language had to be added that more explicitly protected religious institutions who refused to conduct gay nuptials. This, even after lawmakers created a two-tier marriage system (civil and religious). But even the bill's main sponsor, Rep. Jim Splaine, was mostly okay with the governor's demands, and he and his peers are quickly rushing to make the changes so the amended bill can be signed by Lynch. Except, what's this? Everyone's not happy? Of course not — and this time, it's the religious types.
They say they've been had! That Lynch lied and misled them! That even these new religious protections — which would ensure anti-gay priests can stick to preaching the evils of Sodom — aren't good enough. Because when all is said and done, Lynch is still letting homosexuals exchange rings. OUTRAGE! NYT:
Kevin Smith, director of Cornerstone Policy Research, the group that led the fight against same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, said Mr. Lynch had misled state residents.
“However the governor wishes to couch his decision on this,” Mr. Smith said, “the fact remains that by signing this bill, he will have broke his trust with New Hampshire voters after repeatedly stating that he opposes gay marriage. This amendment does nothing to protect the religious liberties of independent business owners, such as photographers and caterers, who in good conscience cannot perform their services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.”
Oh c'mon, Smith. Haven't you ever heard of politicians' views "evolving"?
Has XTube.com Been Hijacked? (12)
· Helga von ornstein says: I wouldn’t be surprised if X-tube decided to cave in and sell while... »
· Helga von ornstein says: za »
Why Is Tom Ford Saying A Single Man Isn’t Gay? (4)
· Dave says: Leave the guy alone…why is it that the gays want to claim everything? It’s... »
Taylor Lautner on Rolling Stone Will Be Sexier Than Levi Johnston on Playgirl (17)
· SoCalTeen says: I went to school with Taylor in like elementary school here in Valencia (santa... »
· Tom in COS says: @YellowRanger But who’s counting? »
ABC’s Ridiculous Policy to Ban ‘Controversial’ Adam Lambert From Daytime Airwaves (34)
· B-Eek says: Adam Lambert is so unoriginal. I liked (actually, ADORED) him before but now it seems... »
· Quake says: His performance was trash but adam is right, he has no reason to apologize to anyone for... »
Rich Gays Pay $3.3M More in ‘Death Taxes’ … Worst Lady Gaga Rumor Not About Penis (2)
· Scottie says: Re: Kurt FUCK poor loser gays. »
Movie About Gay Adoption Too Racy to Be Allowed Into Canada (3)
· thecanuck says: Nothing like folks sticking together and generalising. Well done Tommy! »
If You’re Born Gay, How Can A Homo Have a Straight Identical Twin? (5)
· TommyOC says: I’m an identical twin. I’m gay, my brother is straight and happily married... »
Big deal. They passed a separate law reiterating protections for clergy not to perform gay marriages in Connecticut even though lawmakers admitted it was unnecessary. It's a small sop to throw at the right.
Seriously, guys. Do we have to get enraged that churches won't buy us wedding gifts? We can ask everything of our government, but we can only ask so much from private institutions to completely change their beliefs.
There is a point where we have to agree to disagree, and separate state sanctioned marriage from the religious "marriage." This indistinction is what got the evangelicals on our asses in the first place.
"This amendment does nothing to protect the religious liberties of independent business owners, such as photographers and caterers, who in good conscience cannot perform their services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.”
Such lovely people, so incensed are they that two people want to spend their lives together that in the capacity of their business offering catering services to the public they can't even be paid to slice you up some lunchmeat trays and put some mass-produced food over bunson burners. lol
So let me get this straight…
Lynch actually does still support the marriage bill, it's just that some religious groups are withdrawing support.
So why does the headline read like Lynch lied about supporting the bill? Sounds like the liars here are the fundamentalists who broke their agreement.
This bill seems to give us what we want, though it's a shame that government is tying the law in knots to accommodate the churches. What does "religious marriage" mean anyway? The rules for an orthodox Jewish, sharia Muslim and Roman Catholic marriage are all different. It is not one thing. It would have been far better to have one inclusive marriage law and a clear grandfather clause which exempts churches which feel they want to remain in medieval times. Creating "religious marriage" gives them a legal foundation to continue their discrimination, and less incentive to civilize themselves.
Ultimately it makes the law sloppy, though I suspect this would not have passed otherwise. The main thing for me is that we get all the recognition we deserve. Let them revisit this mistake in a few years once the electorate sees that the earth is not going to open up and swallow everyone.
Another inaccurate headline, designed for more clickthrus.
Thanks Queerty!
How does that laugh from The Simpsons go?
"Ha! Ha!"
I look forward to the day when I can say I do not care what the christian right says.
Jeez this headline fake-out was unnecessary! now i have to go put my torch and pitchfork away…
How is the headline inaccurate? They're saying he lied about supporting gay marriage when he said he *wouldn't* do it.
Get over it, girlfriend. All of these arguments were used against black people for the last 450 years. Times, they'a change. And the only reason gays haven't been marrying for thousands of years, can you guess why, they can't even marry now! Does that make any kind of sense to you?