Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: New Hampshire Governor Worried About Religious Freedom?

By: Budbud

Budbud — Mon, 18 May 2009 06:24:05 +0000

Yes, the language is not needed and anyone with half an education should know that, but you’d be surprised at the number of people who don’t.

A church doesn’t even have to marry it’s very own congregants if they don’t want to. I’ve known Catholics who were refused a Catholic wedding in the church they grew up in because the couple lived together before or one had been divorced, or one was of another faith and the couple wouldn’t promise to raise any and all children Catholic.

No lawsuits ever, since there’s NEVER been any legal standing to FORCE a church to do anything.

Gays have been portrayed by the right as “never satisfied”, militant screechers who can’t be trusted to respect how other people “feel”. There seems to be this fear that even though NO church has ever HAD TO marry anyone, gays will somehow be the one group who will be hell bent on changing this. It’s all part of this larger conspiracy theory that they put out about gays as wanting to destroy all that’s good and true.

I’m not sure if “they” really believe this, or if they just know they can ignite the idiot masses against gays by making such claims.

Either way, I’m glad that the language is there if it looks like a gesture of consideration and respect to the religious nuts. It kind of takes ammo away from those who would make absurdly false claims like “legal gay CIVIL marriage will FORCE anti-gay churches to marry gays”.

I read that the Catholic Bishop in some state was actually SAYING JUST THAT in t.v. ads against CIVIL marriage equality. Catholic bishops are HIGHLY educated individuals, so…I’m sure he was well aware of the falsehoods he was stating. What very little respect I had for the Catholic church went away for sure when I heard that an educated man of the cloth was gladly lying to the idiot masses to further the paranoia.

It’s stupid and on one level, yes, offensive, but if it gives cowardly politicians some political cover, and if it takes some paranoia ammo away from the anti-gay zealots, then write it down in bold print italic and highlight that shit!

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:31:25 +0000

Bud, if you mean in New Hampshire, I’m pretty sure they’re not considering an exception for non-religious business settings there. The exceptions apply only to religious organizations and only to marriage ceremonies.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:41:44 +0000

Frank, there are many atheists who marry and are against same-sex marriage and plenty of antigay atheists too. A lot of people think that because someone doesn’t believe in any deity, they are on our side, they’re not. Marriage is a social contract just like a business. Money is exchanged in return for things, sex being one of them. So in a way, though I am for marriage equality, one could also argue and I’m being cynical here, that marriage could also be construed as a form of legal prostitution, if you take the classice scenario, a housewife whose husband is the bread winner, supports her financially. He comes home ideally to a clean, tidy house, food on the table, laundry done, his bed made and in return is granted sexual favors by his spouse. Nowadays, the reverse could be true with stay at home husbands.

By: Bud Burgoon-Clark

Bud Burgoon-Clark — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:19:40 +0000

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??!!

By: Karl Rosenqvist

Karl Rosenqvist — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:15:59 +0000

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.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 17 May 2009 05:14:43 +0000

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

By: Sarrellec

Sarrellec — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:06:10 +0000

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.

By: KaninZ

KaninZ — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:47:09 +0000

Make no mistake, this is NOT about protecting religious freedom. This is about protecting religious intolerance.

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:27:37 +0000

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?”

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:55:13 +0000

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.