Thursday, May 14, 2009
Homo New Hampshire
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The governor—who had been on the fence—says he'll sign New Hampshire's marriage equality bill into law if one change is made:
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage, but only if it's changed to give churches and people affiliated with them more protections.As passed, the bill would allow churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. But Lynch said Thursday he wants clearer language to ensure that people won't be forced to violate their religious principles. He says laws in Connecticut and Vermont do that.
I don't have an issue with adding that language even though it duplicates protections that are already on the books. (Churches aren't compelled to perform ceremonies for 100% legal marriages between heterosexuals; they can decline to host or officiate for any reason.) And it seems to me that we have the religious bigots screeching about their liberties somehow being infringed to thank for this development. They've claimed—erroneously—that legal same-sex marriage somehow infringes on their religious liberties. If we can add language to marriage equality bills that make it clear that no churches or religious groups will be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or lend us children to act as flower girls, what will they object to then?
Share via
1
Trust me Dan, they'll object to something...it won't make sense, but they'll object to whatever it is.
2
You know thr right wing religionists are not about the truth but instead are about obstruction and false witness.
3
I agree with you Dan, give them their little 'protections' until they run out of things to yelp about.
4
Why not point to statutes and applicable articles in their constitution and ask him if he would like to duplicate laws or if he thinks merely allowing churches to accept the standing laws that protect them will be sufficient? If they're so inclined, churches could also post these statutes and laws on their doors, even though most gay couples would just as soon avoid a church that would do such a thing.
Seems logical.
Of course, the pass-back could be done in two consecutive days and he could have this signed within hours of that, so if he wants his street cred, let him have it.
Seems logical.
Of course, the pass-back could be done in two consecutive days and he could have this signed within hours of that, so if he wants his street cred, let him have it.
5
The gov knows the change won't affect practice. He's just looking for political cover. Give it to him, and we gain an ally.
7
I think the more distinctions we can make between civil marriage and religious marriage the better for everyone involved. I think there's a lot of religious people out there who don't necessarily have a problem with "civil unions", but think - thanks largely to skanky clergy - that "gay marriage" means their church will be forced by the government to do something they wouldn't normally do.
In fact, I think it should be a frequent talking point for the pro gay marriage organizations that gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on churches.
In fact, I think it should be a frequent talking point for the pro gay marriage organizations that gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on churches.
8
Oh, they'll find something else to whine about. But with "religious protections" codified into law, their footing for future whining will be extremely weak. I mean, what it looks like we're going to end up with in NH is a marriage equality bill with ironclad (albeit completely redundant) religious protection language. When the religious right finds something else to complain about, we can say, "Hey, look! You've got full protection for your beliefs under the law. You don't have to marry the homos, you don't have to let the homos marry in your churches, hell, you don't even have to LIKE the homos, so why are you still complaining?"
9
They will object to the fact that we are dirty disgusting perverts and sinners who don't obey God's laws. Or something.
12
Look deeper, Dan. The language of Lynch's amendment is very broad and undermines the anti-discrimination laws. This is not a good deal. The legislature should reject it and force the governor to veto or back off. No democratic governor should be seeking to gut anti-discrimination laws. Shameful.
13
They will object to the same thing they always object to: not being able to force others to adhere to their religious views.
This will be under the facade of the same barrage of non-sequitur consequences:
-People will marry their dog and become polygamists, complete with tacky long underwear.
-Schools will require children to watch gay porn.
-The government will outlaw Evangelical Christianity.
I see no change in tune coming from such protections.
This will be under the facade of the same barrage of non-sequitur consequences:
-People will marry their dog and become polygamists, complete with tacky long underwear.
-Schools will require children to watch gay porn.
-The government will outlaw Evangelical Christianity.
I see no change in tune coming from such protections.
14
Wouldn't surprise me if some cash-strapped anti-gay-marriage churches with attractive sanctuaries, gardens, or reception halls would nevertheless accept rental payment for gay marriages performed by others.
15
@9- sure, they will, but who cares?Tell them to go screw themselves. ONCE THE LAW is on your side-you won. It's like with abortions, divorces, fornication,etc, they whine and cry the bloody murder, but hey, it's legal, they can do nothing about it.
They'll learned to deal with homosexual marriage just as they learned to deal with the fact that 50% people or have been,or going thru a divorce, young people live together before marriage, and if needed,church members get abortions just like that. They will accept gays in their midst as norm just as any other formerly "unacceptable sinners".
Times will change, i strongly believe in it.
BTW,I am straight, devout Christian woman and stand behind gay marriage 100% I am ashamed, honestly, that people like me are not vocal enough in our support. There *are* Christians that are not hateful bigots!
They'll learned to deal with homosexual marriage just as they learned to deal with the fact that 50% people or have been,or going thru a divorce, young people live together before marriage, and if needed,church members get abortions just like that. They will accept gays in their midst as norm just as any other formerly "unacceptable sinners".
Times will change, i strongly believe in it.
BTW,I am straight, devout Christian woman and stand behind gay marriage 100% I am ashamed, honestly, that people like me are not vocal enough in our support. There *are* Christians that are not hateful bigots!
16
Number 12 has it exactly right, Dan. Pay close attention. The "Religious Right" is neither. They betray the Christ they profess to follow in their treatment of others, cloaking their hatred in pious words. Shame on them.
17
It seriously makes my head explode that this is necessary, and that the people who claim it's necessary are so obviously stupid as to think it is.
But pragmatically, if we have to put it in, we put it in.
But pragmatically, if we have to put it in, we put it in.
18
I would let them include it, and include another provision confirming the rights under the First Amendment of hateful bigots to spout mindless nonsense. That would at least put the added language in perspective.
19
I have to agree with Lurleen on this one. As a lawyer, the breadth of the language is troubling for me. We may not recognize the consequences now, but I feel they'll be lurking when we have a particular case of discrimination. I've read a comment from one Republican NH legislator who says the legislature should override a veto. I agree.
21
I don't understand the need to add this ammendment. Churchs have always had the right to refuse to marry, to decide who to allow membership to, what baptism is acceptable for membership, and to determine who they view worthy to take communion as well. It seems unnecessary.
23
once they're done complaining about this, they're going to move to complaining about talking about gays in schools. They're doing it here in MA. They don't want us to acknowledge that gay people exist, even when there's a kid in the classroom with LGBTQ parents. That's the next fight.
24
"...what will they object to then?"
Not being able to toss our spouses out of a hospital room. Not being allowed to refuse filling our prescriptions. Having to serve us at restaurants. Having to ring up our purchases at the grocery store. Oh gosh...there are a zillion things they can still point to as violations of their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs.
But...yes...I agree. Go ahead and cc the first amendment into every frickin' same-sex marriage bill. Just to prove it isn't having their first amendment rights abridged that they're afraid of.
Not being able to toss our spouses out of a hospital room. Not being allowed to refuse filling our prescriptions. Having to serve us at restaurants. Having to ring up our purchases at the grocery store. Oh gosh...there are a zillion things they can still point to as violations of their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs.
But...yes...I agree. Go ahead and cc the first amendment into every frickin' same-sex marriage bill. Just to prove it isn't having their first amendment rights abridged that they're afraid of.
25
It's about churches and church-controlled groups (like service agencies) being able to not recognize gay marriages, with impunity. For example:
Do you work for one of these groups and want insurance for your legal spouse? No, we are not going to consider you married, no benefits for you.
There can't be many applications of this exception, but it's stunning that they want the right to deny a legal reality because it offends their religious view -- to be able to cover their eyes and ears and insist that the sun still revolves around the earth.
Do you work for one of these groups and want insurance for your legal spouse? No, we are not going to consider you married, no benefits for you.
There can't be many applications of this exception, but it's stunning that they want the right to deny a legal reality because it offends their religious view -- to be able to cover their eyes and ears and insist that the sun still revolves around the earth.
26
What they will object to is what they are really afraid of... offering health care to gay married spouses. And I bet this is just a smokescreen to cover the health care issue. So the threat of gay marriage is great ammunition for pushing public option/single payer insurance.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS