Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: New Hampshire Governor Worried About Religious Freedom?
It was announced yesterday that the Governor of New Hampshire will sign the marriage bill, as long as changes are made to beef up protections for religious individuals in the State. He wants the New Hampshire bill to look more like the marriage law in Connecticut.
Well the New Hampshire bill guarantees: “Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.”
And Conneticut’s marriage bill states:” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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 the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration 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 nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society”
Now we all want gay marriage laws to pass in New Hampshire, but this kind of language is redundant and just encourages discrimination by codifying a legislative approval of homophobia.
First, no religious institution in any country where gay marriage is permitted is ever forced to perform or participate in a gay marriage. Second, no private citizen is ever forced to perform or participate in a gay marriage. The only places that can’t discriminate against LGBT couples are public places that fall under the constitution.
Just like a synagogue can require it’s members to be Jewish before performing a wedding, a church can require it’s members to be straight before performing a wedding.
Gay marriage has never interfered with religious freedom. Not in any form proposed.
As for the responsibility to host a marriage ceremony if you are a public institution with a religious affiliation, you can’t refuse to rent your venue to gay couples for a civil union, the baptism of their child, a birthday party. Public institutions can’t get a license to discriminate just because they claim to be religious.
The important point is that the kind of language proposed for the New Hampshire Bill does not change the law. It does not change the fact that courts will look at a location or service provider and determine if they are, in fact, religious or public. All this language change does is make it clear to the public that the legislature thinks its ok to refuse services to same-sex couples. That public affirmation of bigotry is harmful.
Consider for just a moment if the language in the bill read something like this… ” …shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith that two people of different races/ethnicities should not be joined in marriage…”
Language like that in this day (5/15/2009) would be shouted down from every corner of the political spectrum. Well this is no different! But for the US Constitutional prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race there are many public businesses who would prefer NOT to serve me and my other non-white friends. Not because we don’t pay, not because we create a disturbance to their transacting of business. No, these establishments would just prefer not to have me and my non-white friends on their premises. However, since they are prohibited by law, they must accept me when I come to do business. The kicker here is that only on RARE occasions do I choose to do business with them! Why would I choose even once to do business in these establishments? As a reminder to them that I exist in the world and they must deal with me and others like me, and you know what? Over time some of these places have come to “lessen” their overt aggression when I enter the door. Isolation from those that are different does not give us more understanding, in fact it works towards reinforcing the erroneous stereotypes of the past. In some cases the lack of exposure to the “others” of life have created a notion that it is fine to treat them differently and even to treat them as less than human– does anyone remember how the Holocaust of the Jewish people began?
So while you’re going around endorsing exclusion of some because you think they are different, remember that once you start pointing out differences there is something to point out in all of us!!
Peace and be blessed! Sharon
Here’s the thing that worries me: Religious entities run hospitals. Suppose in an emergency, the nearest hospital happens to be run by a Catholic order or diocese. Does this kind of legislative loophole language mean the hospital administrators — or more likely, the sister/nurses on the floor and the doctors who write orders can prevent my same-sex spouse from visiting or making medical decisions on my behalf?
Really? I mean really? Who cares? This is already a protection guaranteed by the Constitution…ehm…well, so is equality and we see how well we are protected in that, but I digress…they want stronger language, redundant language…whatever. Give it to them because they already have it. This is purely political and anyone with 1/2 a brain will see this grandstanding for what it is. It is one more state that will recognize our equality!
I truly believe that we should not legislate marriage – for anyone. Rather only civil unions should be recognized. Leave marriage to social, cultural, and religious groups – of any stripe, but give absolutely equal civil unions to all. No law should recognize or comment on marriage – for hetero or homosexual couples.
I’ll even go a step further – polygamy – if its among informed, consenting, knowledgeable of alternatives in life, not brain-washed children, but consenting, sane, educated adults – with the protections of individuals.
Has the concept of separation of church and state been deep sixed in this country?
Nanuq, relax. The legislation clearly states that it applies only to “the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.”
So a religious denomination can say to a gay couple that it cannot have a religious marriage because of one’s sexual orientation and in conflict with that denomination’s beliefs? This opens up a can of worms. Putting religion aside for a moment, why can’t a gay owned hotel for example exclude straights if they so choose considering that so many straights are opposed to same-sex marriage and homophobic? I see no difference in terms of refusing services of any kind if doing so offends the sensitivities of gay people. Why should any religion get special protection and enjoy paying no taxes but allowed to discriminate? Marriage licenses are issued by states, not religious denominations.
Emma, I’m going to have to disagree with you. The fact is this is a political move. It’s about the Governor protecting votes on both sides of his constituency. More importantly it is a potentially powerful political tool for us. It has the potential to have one group of LGBT activists highlight that a balance between religious freedom and LGBT rights can be struck and that the fear mongering in the NOM ad and similar places is terribly misplaced. Then on the other hand we can point out how very pointless this language is, and that at no point was religious freedom in jeopardy.
Should this kind of manipulation of the conversation to pound through the heads of the average person be necessary? No, it shouldn’t. However, that is not the reality of the world we live in. Every public communication is a manipulation of the public’s perception of our cause. It is a manipulation of their world view, and of the public themselves. To think differently is betrays a naive view of the way media works, and every public communication that is crafted on a view of what we should have to say to get our rights is a wasted opportunity. If you need further proof of this go take a look at the pro and anti prop 8 ads and then ask yourself when you watch the pro prop 8 ad with the little girl what would have happened if it has been a scare ad about what happens to the kids of lgbt parents who are not allowed the protections of a government sanctioned family. Ask yourself if you think the vote would have gone the same way.
If churches can be allowed to exclude non-members from using their facilities already, then what is the big deal? I assume St. Patrick’s doesn’t rent out for bar mitzvah’s either.
But, you would think that in a time of financial distress, the church, and the Catholic one in particular, would be looking for other revenue sources. I mean, jee, what does it hurt to let a gay couple into their basement so they can serve potato salad and cold cuts and dance the Chicken Dance?” If they can make a $400 rental fee they should be happy.
Give the Gov what he wants. In time the old American Spirit (greed, love of money) will end up taking over and these group will rent to everyone!
Look folks, I just finished my thesis basically on this exact subject. Dozens of law review articles, court cases, homophobic religious manifestos and 135 pages later I have come to a couple of conclusions. First, this kind of stuff is pretty standard and in the end beneficial. The anti-gay rights argument now is that there is a necessary choice to make between gay rights and religious liberty. It is passive aggressive sophistry. An emphasis on these sorts of provisions undermines the false nature of this choice.
Second, law is limited in its ability to create social equality. It is doubtful that a statute can actually make private citizens treat us equally. Lawsuits are expensive, courts are slow and most discrimination is subtle enough that it is difficult to prove.
Third, when courts or legislature get too far ahead of public opinion, it becomes more difficult to secure the benefits that law can grant us. After the court decision mandating marriage in MA, we suddenly had 30 states with constitutional marriage bans. We are now past this hysterical reaction but this broad-based erection of constitutional barriers will make same-sex marriages march across America exponentially longer and more difficult. We will either need one of the conservative block on the Supreme Court to be replaced with a liberal or we will have to hold ballot measures on this issue in states ranging from Michigan to Oregon to Alabama.
Overall, I believe the moral thing to do is for the law to recognize our full equality. But sometimes the moral thing isn’t the smart thing. We must shift public opinion before law can codify our gains without shooting us in the foot. In the meantime we should make it clear as the NH governor has done that rights are not a zero-sum game.
NOM utilizes as an example a beach side chapel in Ocean Grove, NJ that forbid a same-sex ceremony and (i think) lost its tax exempt status. The chapel is rented out for public use and because of this it is required to adhere to the non discrimination policies in NJ. If the CT wording is used in NJ then the chapel could be discriminant in their leasing of the property for same sex unions in the future. Here is where NOM would win a victory.
Michael Dufty:
To some extent NOM may have won a victory, but considering that NH will recognize SSM they have lost the war.
The proposed change has only to do with marriages. And it restricts its usage to churches, or organizations directly affiliated or people who work for those churches. I’ve read the actual text on line.
It is 99% of what we want. It doesn’t open the door to a restaurant putting up a sign saying str8s only, or things like that.
Besides, who’d want to have a gay marriage in a homophobic church. Sure you would stick it in their eye, but you’d also be paying them money.
Give me a break, people. this will be the 6th state with “Marriage”. It is moving the state from second class civil unions to first class legal marriage.
As much as I’d love to toss those homophobic churches into Saudi Arabia, lets remember :
1. It is the asses in their heirarchy that are the problem.Lets not win the battle, and lose the war. let them have their homophobic houses of hate all to themselves.
Lets keep the momentum going. NY and NJ next.
And remember that we’ll prob have to fight a referendum in Maine. The last thing we want to do is piss off the good religious people who are much more liberal then their church. Their votes will matter re keeping marriage in Maine.
And keeping the momentum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So long as religion is kept in state affairs like officiating the solemnization of marriage, religion is at ‘risk’. It doesn’t matter if laws are written to say it is not to make people feel better. A higher principle is being violated in regard to discrimination.
Separation of church and state. Want religion protected? Keep it out of government affairs. Creating specific codes to protect it is like saying it’s ok to make specific codes to not protect gay marriage.
The government shouldn’t recognize the solemnization of marriages performed by religious leaders at all in regard to civil marriages, not if they are going to be given permission to be discriminatory.
People acting as officiates of the state should all be treated equally with the same expectations, not given special protections in regard to discrimination just because they might happen to worship some deity..
Robert in NY said “So a religious denomination can say to a gay couple that it cannot have a religious marriage because of one’s sexual orientation and in conflict with that denomination’s beliefs?”
Robert: I am 100 % for gay marriage, I have been able to contribute $50,000 or so to supporting gay peoples quest for equality under the law, and dignity”, so I hope you realize I am serious
But being Jewish, do you think our temple would rent out their hall to a Islamic group wedding? Prob not a chance, although really, if we think about it, what an opening that would be for dialog and friendship. And bet your last dollar that the temple could not be sued for not renting out their property to an Islamic group
Part of what the Democratic Gov. of NH wants to do is build trust between two groups that are at odds re the marriage issue, but not necessarily on all other gay issues. The changes only apply to religious institutions and re marriage. It picks up the issue of eg the Knights of Columbus – a Catholic attached group being forced to rent out their hall. BTW, I think that legally the NJ case was right re the lawsuit, but saw it as giving the religious extremists an issue of fact they could use. Win the battle, lose the war.
We get gay marriage in NH this way, and as I said in another post, we show the good religious people in Maine, who will prob have a referendum vote on marriage there, that we are not going to trample their religious beliefs, however wrong we believe their beliefs re homosexuality to be.
And in my opinion, the NH Gov is really really a smart guy. He is actually bringing to the table the far right churches, and getting them to agree in some sense to let gay civil marriage go forward in NH. That to me is absolute dynamite – he got their support. And his name says CATHOLIC. Hell, the church might darn well excommunicate him, and make him a bigger ally in the process.
He opened a dialog. And what this will also do is show not only the good religious people we respect their beliefs, but it will make a mockery of the real hatemongers like NOM, and other extremists who make all kinds of claims about how gay marriage will destroy civilization, and all that other manure.
So this is really a watershed event. And I didn’t realize it was such a watershed event in Conn, even though I talked with the Love Makes a Family director there about the situation.
SO EVERYONE – THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MARRIAGE IN NH, & SHOW GOOD RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WE AREN’T GOING TO FORCE OUR WAY INTO THEIR HOUSES OF WORSHIP.
AND IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE GAY MARRIAGE IS DOOM GROUPS, OPENS THE DOOR TO MORE ACCEPTANCE OF GAY PEOPLE BY MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE RELIGIONS, ESP. EPISCOPAL, THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERANS (THE LIBERAL BRANCH), AND THE PRESBYTERIAN USA GROUP. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ALREADY MOVING TOWARDS FULL EQUALITY FOR GAY PEOPLE.
IT HAS TAKEN ME OVER TEN YEARS – SINCE MATTHEW SHEPARDS DEATH (I’ve met his parents), TO SEE SO MUCH PROGRESS, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING.
AND THAT MUCH THE COUNTRY IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THIS IS POLITICALLY SMART, I’M GUESSING THE GOV WILL GET WHAT HE WANTS, WE’LL GET MARRIAGE FOR GAY PEOPLE IN NH. WONDERFUL.
AND DONT’ FORGET WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF GOOD RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, MANY FAR MORE LIBERAL THEN THEIR CHURCH BUT GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THEIR PRIORITY ISSUE, TO SAVE MARRIAGE IN MAINE ON WHAT WE EXPECT TO BE A REFERENDUM ON IT IN NOV.
So lets not be emo bitches. This is 99% good, or maybe if you look at the effect on good religious people, and opening a dialog based on trust, 150% good.
And instead of bitching (you may remember how much I have bitched at times), go to
EQUALITYMAINE.ORG, AND SEND THEM SOME MONEY TO HELP PROTECT MARRIAGE THERE. And thank the Maine Governor also.
You build a movement by focusing on the good things, building trust with the non-monolithic opponents, and leveraging each win to help the next one.
Which is the biggest political lesson of my life and 10 years working on political issues as a volunteer. What I had fallen for was that the anti gay marriage crowd was a monolithic block. Anything but the truth. And what the real hate mongers are trying to do is stir us up to “hate the conservative churches”, which will drive good relatively liberal church people into the arms of the hate-mongers. The target of those people is not their own who are totally poisoned, but to get US to react in such a fashion as to drive the moderate elements back to the really bad guys.
Don’t fall for it.
Sorry so long. Victory for much of the country except the bible belt south is within grasp. Lets not get trapped
Comments – send them also to me at Stephen1553@gmail.com Not my primary email but I’ll check it regularly. And be glad to telecon you if you want. We live, btw, near Annapolis, MD