Comments on: NH gov will sign gay marriage bill if it’s changed

By: Mickie

Mickie — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:49:21 +0000

My concern is how this ‘small change’ will be worded.

Some religious groups are using these things to reject, and WORSE, UNDO {!!!} adoptions of children by Gay people.

We can NOT afford to be so hasty as to say ‘Yeah, whatever. Sign it.’

We need to say ‘HOLD UP!! WHAT does that say???’
…and then investigate the possible ramifications before going forward!!!

Almost ANYTHING that speaks in ANY way to the possibility of subverting committed gay couples {married, ‘CU’ed, or just plain together for 32 years} is on the table with those who are against us.
I predict ‘our kids’ will be the next ugly front.

Know your enemy!!! Spend time reading forums that attract everyday people on both sides of the issue. You will be amazed at the tactics!!!

By: Gene

Gene — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:31 +0000

I think a lot of people here are missing the point.

The problem of the religious protections has nothing to do with the wedding day. It has everything to do with the (it is hoped) many years of married life afterwards in which gay married people will be allowed to be discriminated against.

We probably all agree that we don’t want to be married in a church that doesn’t want us. But, what about these very common scenarios:

– You are taken to an emergency room at a catholic hospital that is legally protected from recognizing spousal rights? Who will make decisions on your care if your spouse is not allowed to do so?
– You want to adopt a child, but the adoption agency decides that gay people don’t make good parents? What recourse do you have?
– Suppose you have children and they are refused admittance to any number of functions with their friends because the playgroup / daycare / preschool / school / baseball team / is sponsored by, or meets on property controlled by a group that doesn’t like that little Johnnie or Janie has two moms or two dads?
– You want to attend a school that is affiliated with a church. Can you be denied admittance? Can your application for financial aid be screwed up because they won’t recognized your spouse’s student loans that you are struggling to pay off? Can they deny you housing in the graduate dorm because they consider you cohabitating single people?
– Even silly things. Let’s pretend there might be a straight florist or baker somewhere. You order flowers or a cake to be sent to your spouse for your anniversary. They cancel the order at the last minute because they realize the card or cake is to say “To my wonderful husband. Love, Garry,” and it offends their “Christian” sensibilities.

There’s a lot more to marriage than a wedding. And there are a lot more opportunities for prejudice than just on the wedding day.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:13:52 +0000

No one can force a religious org to do anything, hell religious orgs can do illegal things, as long as it’s part of their ceremony. Does he not realize religion is the most protected group in this country? – What is he worried about? – Or is he just pandering to them (thats more like it), and he’s a D.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:29:48 +0000

This is a fair compromise. If we truly want to demonstrate the seperation of church and state, this will further assist the LGBT movement and prove opposition that we are not “forcing” religious institutions and demonstrate those on the fence this is not only our pursuit of happiness, but also the legal attachment and rights to “marriage” on the civil side.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:12:08 +0000

The AP dropped the ball on this one. “He says laws in Connecticut and Vermont do that.” Do what? Ensure religious rights, or violate them? That is, does he want the language like Vermont or Connecticut, or does he want his own superior language?

By: Veronica Onassis

Veronica Onassis — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:49:40 +0000

I agree with the governor. The language to “protect the churches” should be more defined. No one is opposed to that. I say let the churches get their little wording on to the bill. No one would like to get married in one anyway.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:20:11 +0000

They should have done this before the bill was submitted for a vote. In any event, who really cares if a religious denomination doesn’t want to perform let alone acknowledge a same-sex marriage? The only caveat I would uphold is that all state and local employees who perform civil marriages should NOT be exempt because of religious conflicts. They are paid by the tax payers and therefore should be subject to the law. There’s a big difference between civil and religious marriage. If those who perform civil marriages have a problem, let them find alternate employment, or leave their religious beliefs at home where they belong.

By: pogovio

pogovio — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:46 +0000

Has anybody seen the wording the governor wants in the bill? I think most of the other bills have been careful not to infringe on churches. But there have been some “religious protections” proposed that are completely improper; I hope the gov is not going to force these into the bill.

For example, should a florist be allowed to refuse to supply flowers for a gay wedding. Should a Knights of Columbus that normally rents out its hall to the public for weddings be allowed to refuse to rent it out for a gay wedding? Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to perform artificial insemination on a woman because she is married to a woman? If this kind of “protection of religion” is what the governor wants, then the head says don’t make that unacceptable compromise, but the heart says accept it for now, and try to correct it later.

By: ReligionSUX

ReligionSUX — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:46:03 +0000

WATCH OUT RHODE ISLAND! HERE WE CUM! I MEAN COME! If the relgious NUTS aren’t “required” to marry us then why should all the Catholics of RI or all the religious nut cases in any state care? Hmmm.

Maybe because they are full of “The Lord’s” Love like they claim?

I know “Morgon” yes girl, I already know, your little church in MD is so great! Good for you, but too bad the rest aren’t!

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:32:47 +0000

Rabbis, priests, and ministers currently have the right to decide who they will and will not marry. Some rabbis won’t perform an interfaith marriage, gay or straight. This is no different from how it is now.