Governor will sign gay marriage bill in NH if changes are made

[brooklynite]

Source: NECN

(NECN) - New Hampshire Governor John Lynch says he will sign a bill to legalize gay marriage in the Granite State, but only if legislators make some changes.

Lynch made his decision today, eight days after final passage by the Legislature.

...snip...

"This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

"If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

Read more: http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/05/14/Governor-will-sign-gay/1242326473.html

[aquart]

Ah, so he'll license bigotry AND gay marriage.

Fine.

[merwin]

26. Let him add it in. It won't change the substance of the bill at all.

Right now, any religion can refuse to marry whoever they want to, so adding that language in will change nothing about that.

[Toucano]

31. That is exactly what he is doing. n-t

[Critters2]

1. This bs about people forcing religious people to do things

just pisses me off. We can refuse to officiate at any wedding now, for any reason or for no reason. The same will be true re:gay couples. States need to stop believing the fundie propaganda.

[imdjh]

6. The fundie propaganda is pervasive

They are pretty much like everyone else, they hear the clip and it's all they need to know. The case of the Ocean Grave Prayer Meeting Association is a classic example. All they needed to hear was the lesbians were forcing Ocean Grove to rent them a "religious building" for their wedding (in quotes as always) and they accepted it without investigation.

[Critters2]

11. Indeed. There's more to that story than the fundies like to admit. nt

[marshall]

13. I wonder if what he's talking about is venues for weddings

Wasn't there some kind of lawsuit in Massachusetts over a place by the beach that didn't want to rent to a lesbian couple for a wedding? It had something to do with the place getting public funds.

[Critters2]

15. It was New Jersey. A place owned by the United Methodist Church,

by way of a related organization, that was receiving some benefits from the state for conservation purposes. The United Methodist Church doesn't allow gay marriage ceremonies in any of its facilities, so turned a couple away. But, because they had always behaved as if it was a public accommodation, and because it received state benefits, it fell under the state's non-discrimination policy. So, the couple sued. The church whined that it should be allowed to discriminate, because it believes Jesus would want that :banghead:. Methodists and other fundies have been complaining about this ever since. They want to keep their hatred intact.

[tabbycat31]

17. that town owned by the church is the next town over from me

it's always discriminated, and it's also located in a heavily gay area (there's a lot of gays living in the town actually). They do have a boardwalk with a fishing pier, which is where many couples get married. However the boardwalk is not in very good shape (poor infrastructure) and it's not the best place. One LTTE suggested coming to my town, whose boardwalk is brick (it was replaced after a storm destroyed the original) and there's a gazebo on the boardwalk where people get married. IMO it is a much more appropriate venue for a wedding.

THe issue hasn't gotten much press in the local media, which surpirses me.

[cloudythescribbler]

29. it's just a gesture for the gov to save face -- it's what diplomacy and much politics is all about

[imdjh]

2. SO basically he's inserting language restating the truth

ie that legalizing civil marriage for gay people doesn't force churches to marry them any more than the present law forces a Catholic church to marry a Jew and a Muslim.

[Critters2]

10. That's it in a nutshell. nt

[MercutioATC]

3. Hard to know what he's thinking without actually seeing what changes he wants made.

This could be a complete non-issue.

[Bill McBlueState]

4. ok, whatever

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that same-sex marriage laws should force churches to join the rest of us in the 21st century. But if religious people really need this assurance, I don't see how it hurts to put it in the bill.

[imdjh]

7. agreed nt

[closeupready]

12. I suppose. I just don't like how he's going about this.

n/t

[closeupready]

5. What kind of a governor issues ultimatums like this?

Disgusting.

[Bluebear]

18. One that needs to be replaced.

[AB_Positive]

35. No way, Lynch has my vote for life.

All the language he's adding is the same protections churches already have - it's simply restating so that the fundie idiots can't use FUD to try and fight it.

This language guarantees that the bill can't be overturned on referendum. It's brilliant.

I hate to do this to you folks, but as a "gay vote" in NH: step off and RTFA. The man's doing a great job, and I'm PROUD to be in NH

[Mopar151]

24. Tap dancing in a minefield

NH is moving from right to left very quickly. Gov Lynch has done well in moving a progressive agenda forward while denying ammunition to the GOP. No easy feat with the number of wingnuts in our legislature....

[brooklynite]

8. UPDATE - Governor's proposed language

Below is the language Gov. Lynch has proposed for the same Sex legislation.

# # #

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with 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 such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage 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 individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with 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.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

[merwin]

28. I'm fine with all of that except for section IV

If you look at the text of what they are repealing:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457-A/457-A-mrg.htm

It sure looks like they're getting rid of civil unions. Part of what they are repealing relates to civil unions in other states being recognized in their state... unless I'm reading it wrong, it would allow out-of-state same sex marriages to be recognized, but would remove out-of-state same sex civil unions from being recognized.

Furthermore, wouldn't repealing that law nullify any existing civil unions?

[dflprincess]

9. Do divorce laws specifically say that the Catholic Church does not have to recognize divorces?

No, the laws don't.

This is silly, it doesn't matter what marriages the state performs or recognizes, there is no way any Church will be forced to endorse one they don't approve of. They don't even have to acknowledge marriages performed by another denomination. They can still stay in their little bubbles of bigotry and tsk-tsk those who are more open.

[billyoc]

14. What a stupid stipulation. Can NH compel a church to marry anyone NOW?

What a fucking asshole.

[Critters2]

16. Of course not. This is just giving into fundie fears. nt

[Toucano]

33. The services and accommodations he speaks of are more than just marriage ceremonies

Churches now receive federal money to provide or administer a variety of programs from substance abuse and mental health to food pantries and shelters.

Evidently, the wise governor wants to make sure these churches don't have to provide these services to gay people despite receiving tax dollars to provide them.

[billyoc]

34. Ah, I see. Stop funding them, and there'll be no argument.

[Toucano]

37. Yes. Only the governor and the state legislature have no say because it is a federal program.

Obama calls it The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

[No Elephants]

19. He's diving for political cover, but it seems he is not adding anything to existing law. It's a

shame he couldn't sign a "naked" bill, but I would rather have marriage legalized than worry about language that amounts to surplusage.

[Mopar151]

25. Exactly

Short-circuiting many of the STATED objections to the bill.

[WillParkinson]

20. Yes, protect the churches by all means...

But at the same time make sure you protect us from them. Churches like the Mormons, for example, have way too much authority over our lives in regards to legislation. What about our protections from things like that?

[t0dd]

21. New Hampshire governor says he'll sign same-sex marriage bill

Source: New York Times

BOSTON — Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire said Thursday that he would sign the state’s same-sex marriage bill if it was amended to further protect opponents of such unions from having to take part in ceremonies celebrating them.

Legislative leaders indicated they would allow the changes, making it all but certain that New Hampshire will become the sixth state to allow marriage between gay couples.

“New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections,” Mr. Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. “But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty.”

In its current form, the bill exempts clergy members from having to perform same-sex weddings.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Lynch goes further, exempting any “religious organization, association, or society,” as well as individuals or nonprofit groups working with or for such an organization, from having to participate.

Vermont and Connecticut used similar language in their same-sex marriage bills.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15marriage.html?hp

[dmallind]

22. Not following the minutiae here - what such provisions existed?

I can't imagine any bill that would force any church to allow a wedding they did not condone. Heck the Catholic church wouldn't marry me and the wife (not that we wanted them to). No prob there. That is, in effect, exactly equal to straight marriage. Many churches won't marry non-parishioners, or divorced folks, and so on.

[SpartanDem]

23. None

,but I think they're just covering their bases in order to slap down the usual RW talkingpoint about gay marriage.

[IntravenousDemilo]

27. Yes, that seems like the most reasonable explanation so far. n/m

[Libertyfirst]

30. he needs the cover so he can sign. I say change it the way it wants. Who wants

to work for or marry in fundie church. Rather starve.

[AB_Positive]

36. Winner. We have tons of UU churches here more than happy to marry us.

Separation of church and state does mean that the state technically can't tell churches what to do, just like churches *shouldn't* tell government what to do.

I'm sorry if you're Catholic and want to get married in your church. But seriously - you didn't think a law would let that happen right? It's the Catholic church that's your problem.

I'm an Atheist. All I care about is when I find the right woman, I can marry her - legally and totally. Put the language in, let him sign it. This isn't "Fundie Propaganda" - it's how the rules should have been to start with.

If you're ticked about this, do me a favor. Jump in an ice cold lake, get out and wake up. We won, that doesn't mean we can pull the same facist bully tactics that Bushco. employed. Let the churches be bigots - watch their numbers dwindle due to bigotry. Then decent churches can step in and accept the new flock. It's just like... well - evolution. :P

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.