As the New Hampshire House moves today the same-sex marriage legislation that the Senate passed last week, you’ll notice some changes. Amendments were added to the bill in the Senate and sent back to the House after legislators there in March already approved the legislation; a House committee yesterday approved the changes, sending the bill to a full vote. So what’s different?
The amendments, which the House is expected to confirm today, make a distinction between civil and religious marriage, and permit the selection of the terms “husband” and “wife” on marriage licenses as well as the plain “spouse.”
The two-tier system means “religious marriages” give discretion to churches and synagogues (and mosques and what have you) as to whether they’ll wed same-sex couples; civil marriages don’t have that requirement, but still get to use the word “marriage.” (Score?)
But while the House is expected to pass the bill, it heads next to the desk of Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who hasn’t said what he’ll do with his pen.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Is the two-tier system a happy compromise between civil rights and religious freedoms? Or does installing a “religious marriage” clause breach that little barrier of church-and-state?
timncguy
who cares if they have both? There are churches who will perform “religious” marriages for fay couples if those couples WANT a religious marriage.
And, we all know the Catholic church will NOT perform religious marriages in some cases for straight couples, so they will have to get a “civil” marriage.
So, it will all be equal as there will be both straights and gays getting BOTH kinds of marriages.
Qjersey
It’s a moot point as there are many gay inclusive churches that will marry us.
gayalltheway
@TIMNCGUY & QJERSEY
Ditto. Exactly the point because the “oppressed” religious groups are basically using the fact that the government will actually “force” religious institutions to go against their beliefs and perform same-sex matrimony. So with the wording in the bill that clearly defines what is ‘civil marriage’ and also separate it from ‘religious marriage’, I don’t think the religious groups have any other “dissatisfaction” that won’t make them look discriminative and flat-out hateful. I think this 2-tier system works fine for me.
Chris
Any church that preaches the truth of God’s love for ALL of his creations will come around on this issue and marry any couple that meets the church’s spritual requirments for marraige.
The church’s the won’t – who the hell CARES?
Who (straight or gay) would want to belong to the United Bigotted Church of Chist anyway?
kevin (not that one)
OMG. This absolutely violates the church/state separation clause. Churches and synagogues are already free to discriminate to their liking and DO NOT need the government’s permission to do so. Obviously this amendment was put in to satisfy the religious conservative reaction and to perhaps cut off criticism at the knees, but it is totally unnecessary. The IRONIC part about all of this is that in order to pacify the fears of the religious bigots, the government is doing what those folks should be fearful of: sanctioning religious speech. The government has absolutely NO SAY in what a religious organization does, so long as it doesn’t take government money or doesn’t physically endanger its followers. If this is what it takes to get marriage equality passed, fine…so be it. But I’m worried that we’re losing the dividing line between church and state by the government even taking a legal stand on what’s a religious marriage and what’s not.
Richard in DC
I think this is a terrific idea, and should serve as an example for marriage legislation across the country.
strumpetwindsock
@gayalltheway:
I don’t expect anything will make some people (on all sides) stop bitching, but so long as it grants legal marriage equality with all the rights included then it is a victory.
If the fundies need to have some sort of clause to make themselves think they have successfully defended themselves from attack, I don’t really care.
Never mind that no jurisdiction that recognizes marriage equality has ever forced any church to go against its marriage dogma – let them have their meaningless clause if they want (and without actually having a legal opinion on it, I assume it IS meaningless, and has no impact on our marriage equality).
ask ena
Isn’t the point that it already IS a two tier system, in theory, and that we have been singled out and discriminated against all along?
Separation of church and state.
I still don’t understand how the religious right has been ruling state law all this time.
strumpetwindsock
@kevin (not that one):
But if it’s just a distinction in name and not in substance (read: IF the clause really means nothing at all) I have no problem with it.
Making a law to lay out rules for church operation does not necessarily mean blurring of church and state. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary. It is the reverse I am concerned about.
The Gay Numbers
It’s not a two tier civil marriage law. Legally (which is what should matter since we are discussing the making of law), it’s a restatement of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. It’s a cookie being tossed into the mix, which has no practical impact on marriage equality. Churches can already discriminate based on religious beliefs against any group (gay, black, women (hence no women priests for example) or otherwise). The only way in which a governmenal entity can intrude is where the religious group is running some programming either funded by governmental entities. Only then are they subject to governmental requirements regarding discrimination. For example, in MA, the issue with the Catholic Charities was not that they were anti-gay marriage or gay rights, but that they received as I remember government funding for adoptions. Interestingly, on the later point about MA, the Charities had previously agreed to the terms (again as I remember) and only stopped agreeing to the terms when they wanted to politize the adoptions for the purpose of claiming to be harmed by marriage equality in MA. Again, practically speaking, there is no such issue here regarding marriage equality. In terms of adoption, if it is not run by the government, there is no issue. If it is, then I can see a minor question about how far does the religious exemption go outside of marriage equality. If it is solely for marriage equality and only in the context of strictly private marriage ceremonies rather than some governmental process then it does not matter.
Tim in SF
This is an excellent idea. This gives us everything we want. And in exchange, it gives the fundies something they already have.
Win-win.
Alexandre
I think this is the most progressive legislation yet. It’s what they have in Canada, and what is arriving (slowly) here in France. Separate Church and State! Everyone should have equal rights under the government, take the religious factor out of it!
strumpetwindsock
@strumpetwindsock:
Actually I shouldn’t say that.
I know there have been several court cases involving failure of a spouse to grant a Jewish Orthodox divorce. I don’t know if the resolution of any of those cases actually involved compelling the spouse to give consent, or overriding the entire process.
So there have been cases where religious marriage dogma has landed in court – just not wrt same-sex marriage.
Now if they were actually talking about setting up a separate legally-recognized religious court that would be completely fucked up. I believe it exists in some countries; the government of Ontario briefly floated the idea of recognizing sharia, but wisely withdrew it.
Bruno
It’s one of those things that helps assuage NOM types without really changing anything much. Really, all it does is give people the opportunity to declare their unions religiously based or not, without regard to the genders of the parties involved. It’s a red herring for the religious right.
atdleft
@Qjersey: Yep. UCC, UU, and MCC will be more than happy to sign onto “religious marriage” for us.
Johan
Actually, what this bill does is necessarily clears up a long-stated “perversion” of the traditional definition of marriage. See, back in the day (and still today in most of Europe) they have a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. There is a sharp line drawn, saying that in order to get the civil responsibilities and rights that come with this contract, you must engage in this contract. The religious ceremony is separate and distinct, as it should be.
Its just that the rightwingnuts who had run our country for far too long have perverted this traditional definition of marriage by conflating the once-separate civil and religious aspect of their marriage contracts.
Support traditional marriage by saving it from religious interference! Stop the mindless redefinition of marriage by the Evangelical Agenda. (Gee… this is all starting to sound oddly familiar…) =)
The Gay Numbers
Johan is right in the sense that this does display people’s ignorance about what the debate is. Anyone thinking this was ever about religion rather than about civil marriage laws is a fucking moron. Civil marriage laws have nothing to do with religious marriages. Yet, I regularly see not only the right but dumb ass gay folk making similar arguments. It reminds me of how crappy our educational system is when I see people make such obviously false arguments.
Blond-Dog
We just aren’t doing a good job at getting out the message about gay marriage! There are two institutions with the same name:
(1) The first is the civil marriage. It is performed by the government and is a business contract determining rights and responsibilities and financial conditions and requires others to acknowledge the existence of a relationship between people.
(2) The second is a sacred rite and is a church responsibility. This religious sacrament, conferred by various religious denominations, whose exact nature, meaning, and theology differs from denomination to denomination.
It is unfortunate they have been called by the same name, and it is inexcusable for religious people to confuse the two deliberately!
The fight we have is to educate other about the difference between civil and religious marriage. We must do a better job of this!
Fight On!
Nickadoo
Is there a precedent for churches being forced to marry anyone? Does the Catholic church need to be protected from Muslims forcing their priest to marry them? Are Jewish rabbis forced to marry Episcopalians? Are Protestants forced to perform inter-faith marriages between Scientologists and Mormons?
As far as I’m aware, clergy have full discretion to marry whomever they choose. I think this is just reactionary nonsense.
The Gay Numbers
How can it be reactionary non-sense if it changes nothing that already is the law now regarding civil marriage. That arguments makes no sense. I think some of you need to examine your luggage.
strumpetwindsock
@Johan:
@The Gay Numbers:
@Blond-Dog:
Or do it the simple way. Have one marriage law – all inclusive – and give churches an exception to perform only those ceremonies that fall within their dogma.
That’s how it works up north here.
While setting two definitions (more actually, since there is not one single “religious marriage”) sort of works, it is sloppy, and inaccurate. All marriage, at the end of the day, must fall under the law of the land. That even goes for extra-judicial religious law if there is a reason (divorce, property, custody) to drag it in the door of a court.
Why should the state undercut its own law and pay lip service to the quirks and inconsistencies in religious dogma – especially if some of those inconsistencies are in breach of human rights recognition?
If they want to remain in the medieval era, isn’t enough that the state makes an exception for them when their dogma IS in breach of human rights legislation? It’s just like grandfathering any other arcane practice for humane reasons; to codify their prejudices only justifies and perpetuates them.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
I think he means it’s reactionary because they feel they need a law protecting them even though there is no justification for it, and the clause actually does nothing (or so I assume, from this story).