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.
Isn’t it amazing that the ACLU which is supposed to back those who’s civil liberties are being stompt on is not to be seen anywhere on the horizon. I guess there is not enough money to be sucked out of the legal challenges. Not surprised. No gays working for the ACLU?? Or, they don’t want to get there fingers wet? Or maybe they are all evangelicals or JW’s? Or maybe Mormons?
SteveMD2 made some really interesting comments about winning the battle and losing the war.
Lets remember that Conn. put in the same sort of amendments that the Gov. of NH wants. And the Conn. Gov, a REPUBLICAN signed the bill turning civil unions into marriage.
A victory seen so solid that the LFMCT – Connecticut gay equality group, will disband at the end of the year. And yes they will keep a political action committee running, to insure no negative changes can be put into law. BTW, there was an attempt to have at CT state constitutional convention in 2010 to put through a marriage ban, and it hardly got off the ground. The next chance for that is either 10 or 20 yrs, and by then the people of CT. – the great majority will yawn about gay marriage, and understand that the opposition was full of shit. Just the situation as in MA. And in 20 yrs, lots of the old homophobes – it is the old stuck in the muds -will no longer be on the scene anyway.
So, to SteveMD2 – thanks for the political lesson. It was an eye opener.
I would state my own long winded opinion but Victor J Kinzer pretty much already said it quite well and with much fewer words than I would have used. Thanks Victor
Honestly who Gives and F as long as i can get married and get my rights. I really can care less if they denied to set up my wedding go to another one im sure there is plenty of gay friendly wedding organizers. and plus even if they do denied you i wound waste my time suing them. Also i wound want to go back there after they denied me.. So lets just get our rights and get gay friendly people im sure there is plenty.. And plus which gay person wants to get married in a church ?????
I am one of those gays who believe that marriage should be a strictly voluntary religious ceremony and that marriage as a social structure be dismantled. Atheist’s generally get married for the governmental perks. Since the US needs cash why doesn’t Obama lead the way and state that marriage is not going to be viewed by the government as a way to differentiate a persons state and federal taxation or end of life estate management. They should tax everyone the same across the board and if you have a kid each guardian should pay a few more percent in taxes. Then those who want to keep marriage as something important don’t have to drag society into it. I’m also tired of being told that because I’m gay I should support gay marriage. Marriage of any orientation is a sham and will almost always end in divorce. Why not carve a truly new direction and start the era where the government see’s only individuals and not couples? All gays want are the perks the government gives anyway. I don’t buy the crap about “relational equality”. Gays have been around forever and if you need society to bless your union in order to have it feel legitimate to you then you have other issues to work on first.
“I am one of those gays who believe that marriage should be a strictly voluntary religious ceremony and that marriage as a social structure be dismantled.”
Whatever, Marriage is and has always been a civil(governmental)contract, long before there was religion. Marriage, especially in the Western world predates religion. Marriage liscenses are much like passports or drivers liscenses, they’re legal documents. I suppose you are also one of those ignorant fagg*ts who want churches to issue drivers liscenses, passports, business liscenses and deeds to your home too.
“Atheist’s generally get married for the governmental perks.”
Speak for yourself, I know atheists who get married for the same reason religious people get married. You don’t know the mind of all atheists.
“Since the US needs cash why doesn’t Obama lead the way and state that marriage is not going to be viewed by the government as a way to differentiate a persons state and federal taxation or end of life estate management.”
I have an even better idea, since the US needs cash, perhaps we could legalize marriage equality. Gays and lesbians could marry, pay for the forms, the liscence, the wedding, reception, wedding rehearsal, limos, hotel rooms, caterers and the like. That would generate cash into the economy and tax revenue. There is more money to be made by respecting people’s rights than by igoring them.
“They should tax everyone the same across the board and if you have a kid each guardian should pay a few more percent in taxes.”
Ignorant idea, I guess we should have a flat tax, where a homeless person or a full time college student pays the same as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. And children are usually tax deducations, NOT tax penalties, after all productive well educated kids pay taxes into things like social security and the like.
“Then those who want to keep marriage as something important don’t have to drag society into it.”
Yes, something as sociologically important as marriage should not have any bearing on society. Much like air shouldn’t have anything to do with wind. Like it or not, gays and lesbians are part of society as a whole and it takes far more self-esteem to fight to be a full member of society then it does to avoid “dragging society” into our lives. Society and the individual are part of each other, you can no more remove marriage and the rights associated with marriage from society than you remove air from wind. To suggest otherwise is pure idiocy.
“I’m also tired of being told that because I’m gay I should support gay marriage.”
Well then you’re a goddamned traitor to your own people. If you don’t care for the insitution of marriage personally, then you should describe yourself as pro-choice on marriage. I know plenty of people who don’t care for marriage, for whatever reasoning, but they define their stance as “pro-marriage choice through marriage equality”. Instead we have self hating faggots and queer theorist utopians who want to destroy the civil insitution of marriage because they personally don’t chose it. Y’all are worse than homophobic biggots themselves.
“Marriage of any orientation is a sham and will almost always end in divorce.”
Once again you should speak for yourself, there are plenty of people both gay and straight who have been together until the end of their lives, this ignorant statement shows nothing but contempt for people and their families.
“Why not carve a truly new direction and start the era where the government see’s only individuals and not couples? All gays want are the perks the government gives anyway.”
Once again a stupid statement. Individualism is very important, the rights and liberties of the individual are essential. The marriage equality movement is about more than just indidivual rights, but individual responsibilities to one another. Marriage as a civil contract entails rights, but also responsibilities and “intangibles” such as the right not to testify against one’s spouse, the right to privacy in interpersonal relations and custody of kids. And if all gays wanted just the governmental benefits, we wouldn’t be fighting for marriage equality.
“I don’t buy the crap about “relational equality”. Gays have been around forever and if you need society to bless your union in order to have it feel legitimate to you then you have other issues to work on first.”
Noone has ever said “relational equality” that is a crock of bullsh*t. We’re fighting for marriage equality. And yes gays have been around since time began, but we’re not asking for “society’s blessing” that is a crock of bullsh*t as well. We’re fighting for equal rights, liberties and treatment under the law. I would counter that anyone, such as yourself Rick, who feels that society should continue to kick us around, treat us as second class citizens and deny us our civil rights, then you are the one who has issues. It takes far more self esteem, far more belief in the righteousness of a cause, to pursue justice for that cause then it is to drop out of society as you propose. Gays and lesbians are not hippies, we recognize that we cannot isolate ourselves from society, and we’re not asking for society’s blessing for anything, we’re fighting for our rights regardless of what society might think about us. Respect is not given, it is earned, it’s earned when we fight back against bigotry and demand to be treated with equal rights and respect. If you want to drop out of society, cos you feel that you don’t need society, then go to a private island and live your unhappy bitter unmarried live there.
I don’t think you are correct. The point of the Conn. language vs. the original NH language is that public institutions that have a religious affiliation will be able to refuse to rent for gay marriages. But, so what??? It is so much more important to have gay marriage than to be able to rent a particular hall that is connected to a particular homophobic religion that we should support the immediate amendment of the bill.
@Rodney Moore- first you might have forgotten that the church used to BE THE GOVERNMENT! So your quip about marriage being around before religion is false since secularism didn’t even exist as we know it until the 1800’s. Marriage was used to transfer Ownership and legal authority from a girls father to her predetermined husband in the eyes of the church and the community.
“There is more money to be made by respecting people’s rights than by igoring them.”
Legal systems will get even more log jammed with domestic and divorce cases thereby reducing the overall positive economic impact the ceremonies activities that you stated. Plus, 50% of all marriages end in divorce for straight people, you know that percentage won’t change for gay marriages (if you’re being honest and not a soap boxing Jesse Jackson-esque opportunist like the ACLU and most other pro-gay organizations.)
You’re just insecure and firing off from a place of pure hate worse than any bigot I’ve met in Texas. The fact that you use insults and profanity to state your case also proves you’re an uneducated and disrespectful human being who was not raised to have common respect for those who have differing opinions and beliefs. People like you think you’re owed something for being gay by society. Gays have not earned their place in society-they bought it. Earning it would require gays to not soapbox on every hang nail and stop forcing people to think what u put your sexual organ into is more than just that. It is not your identity but just one of many facets of a an ENTIRE person. (You must be a d*ck since you have to first tell people what you do with your sexual organ before you will talk to them one word longer.) You’re to shallow to get that concept. You are so misinformed to realize that since you’ve been brainwashed by your hate for others who aren’t just like you in every single way that you cannot see any other viewpoint without infusing it with anger over the fact that it’s different from your viewpoint. You’re more close minded, judgmental and non-accepting than the pope.
I won’t be a lemming and buy into the shallow argument that gay marriage is about equal rights. It’s about setting a social president. I don’t want to be linked to or vote for a social ceremony that for thousands of years was forcefully used over people against their will to ensure procreation, denying the choice of millions of GLBT’s who suffer in silence. But-you did get to spew hate as a self identified gay to another self identified gay so you must be a happy loser now.
SteveMD2, I take some of your points, but lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. If the state protects religious freedom and expression granting denominations the right to legally discriminate against same-sex couples who want to marry, does this cover a gay minister,pastor, justice of the peace etc. if he or she didn’t want to marry a couple because they’re straight? Shouldn’t they too not be allowed the right to discriminate against straights in the same manner? Why are states issuing marriage licenses to straight couples who want a religious marriage anyway? I see a direct conflict in that. Why don’t those denominations who are allowed to discriminate issue their own? They enjoy paying no taxes at our expense and really shouldn’t have a say in who can and cannot marry.
The important thing is: let’s get the 6th state on our side for full marriage equality (none of this Civil Union crap). Religion does not own the term “marriage”. Atheists get “married” every day. If we have to protect the right to irrational, hurtful, and hateful discrimination for religious bigots–well that’s just where we are right now. One day these folks (or their children) will wake up and open their eyes and say, “What’s the big deal?”
Make no mistake, this is NOT about protecting religious freedom. This is about protecting religious intolerance.
Yeah, but in this country, we’re lawsuit happy.
It really is no wonder that religious zealots want some kind of pre-emptive protection from lawsuits brought on by gays that are missing the point.
If your religion tells you you are worthy of death, then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t have anything to do with them!
So, I say “Bravo” for the protections for the psychotic tribes with their invisible friends.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it, there are religious orgs out there more than happy to mumble platitudes to an invisible friend for those among the gay population still suffering from this indoctrinational programming.
Sharon, there are still plenty of churches throughout the states that refuse to perform interracial marriages or interfaith marriages or marriages where one or the other has been divorced.
Such refusals are perfectly legal even without being codified. I don’t really mind adding the wording to the law, but it is redundant just because by the Constitution religious bodies are not constrained by many (most) of the laws of the land.
More’s a pity.
Neil
Currently a similar clause is debated in the UK. The clause of a law against hatecrimes reads;
“For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
The debate is aiming at removing this clause since it was set up to protect religious haters from being prosecuted. This is by the christian community seen as a threat to free speach as usual even though the clause has never been needed and frankly I think it’s stupid since by that law I could say almost anything about gays but if I said it about, oh say for instance, christians then I would be guilty of a hatecrime. I think it’s obvious that christian leaders want’s private laws to protect them and their hateful unchristian beliefs.
None of the following would be allowed essentially SECULAR businesses who do business with the public (except for single-sex gyms, mikvahs, etc.):
NO BLACKS
NO WHITES
NO JEWS
NO NON-JEWS
NO MUSLIMS
NO NON-MUSLIMS
NO WOMEN
NO MEN
NO MIXED RACE COUPLES
NO CATHOLICS
NO PROTESTANTS
NO IRISH
NO ITALIANS
etc. etc. etc. …
So why is it still OK to carve out an exception for religious bigotry against GLBTQAI people IN NON-RELIGIOUS BUSINESS SETTINGS??!!