NH Governor Will Sign Marriage Bill After Changes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 8:49 PM GMT
    http://www.wmur.com/news/19462540/detail.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 9:19 PM GMT
    TitusTi saidhttp://www.wmur.com/news/19462540/detail.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 9:57 PM GMT
    From article: The current bill allows churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

    I don't get what changes he's seeking then.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:14 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidFrom article: The current bill allows churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

    I don't get what changes he's seeking then.



    OMG!!! This is EXACTLY what each and every state should enact. That way, my church marrying me is none of the business of the church down the street who doesn't think it's right and then we can go to city hall in order to get civil recognition and receive the federal and state benefits and protections. Finally, somebody actually gets it!!!!

    OH HAPPY DAY!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:23 PM GMT
    If my understanding is correct, then the rewrite is to include protection for those religious institutions that do not want to perform same sex marriages? If so, then it makes a certain amount of sense. I don't think it helps anyone if somebody tries to sue specific churches because they will not perform the marriages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    That wording is already included in the current bill, though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:32 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidThat wording is already included in the current bill, though.


    That's weird. Then he should just sign the damn thing and get it over with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:34 PM GMT
    Do people really believe that gays want church sanctioned marriages?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 14, 2009 10:35 PM GMT
    How about states just not recognize marriages solemnized by a church and do away with church being involved in the state's business of licensing civil marriages?

    Separation of church and state..

    That is how you protect religion.

    Until that happens churches will always be threatened with legal intervention. It doesn't matter if some law code somewhere says that church's can discriminate, it won't hold up under scrutiny. You just can't have some officiates of the state being allowed to discriminate and not others.

    The solution is simple, don't involve religious institutions in state matters, like civil marriages. What is so hard about that? Religious institutions should be fighting for that to happen and not special exceptions for themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
    Anto saidHow about states just not recognize marriages solemnized by a church and do away with church being involved in the state's business of licensing civil marriages?

    Separation of church and state..

    That is how you protect religion.

    Until that happens churches will always be threatened with legal intervention. It doesn't matter if some law code somewhere says that church's can discriminate, it won't hold up under scrutiny. You just can't have some officiates of the state being allowed to discriminate and not others.

    The solution is simple, don't involve religious institutions in state matters, like civil marriages. What is so hard about that? Religious institutions should be fighting for that to happen and not special exceptions for themselves.


    Great points, but until both sides get over the fight for the ownership of the word MARRIAGE, the church will not let go.

    The simple solution is to dissolve all marriages (I know this isn't going to happen. If so, 12 million + illegal immigrants would be gone already) and then have all couples register at city hall as a civil union for the protections and benefits with a civil union license and if the couple chooses to do so, they can go to their church for a religious ceremony without provocation from any other church or group.

    But again, ownership of the word marriage is the issue of the religious right were honest. New Hampshire is best compromise so far.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
    McGay saidDo people really believe that gays want church sanctioned marriages?


    I certainly do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:45 PM GMT
    How bout we step up and just live with civil unions. There's no difference. We'd have an additional dozen states lined up to approve them if we drop our demands for gay marriage and support civil unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:50 PM GMT
    It's the whole "Separate but equal" issue. It has never worked before and it won't work now. It's premise is, in this case, would be that straights and gays are the same, but you can't have the same. So all should be federally recognized as civilly joined and it we choose to do so, we can be religiously recongized by our individual churches, from my perspective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:51 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidHow bout we step up and just live with civil unions. There's no difference. We'd have an additional dozen states lined up to approve them if we drop our demands for gay marriage and support civil unions.


    Do more research. Plessy vs. Ferguson springs to mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:53 PM GMT
    McGay saidDo people really believe that gays want church sanctioned marriages?


    Believe it or not, some do. There are a lot of gay friendly churches (not all of them Christian) out there that already perform same sex ceremonies. I know it always enrages the hard core atheists among us, but there are still a lot of gay people that want the ceremonies performed by their churches to be legally recognized.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 14, 2009 10:56 PM GMT
    ErikTaurean
    Great points, but until both sides get over the fight for the ownership of the word MARRIAGE, the church will not let go.

    But see, let go of what? It doesn't matter what they feel they 'own', it's a state contract, a civil institution. This shouldn't even be an issue to debate and religious institutions shouldn't even care - see what happens when you have religioun mixed in government? It needs to be removed, for government's own good and for the good of religious institutions. Until that happens the problem is not going to go away and we aren't furthering ourselves or learning for the better by accommodating religious institutions in this way.

    icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 10:57 PM GMT
    GwgTrunks said
    cruelsummer saidHow bout we step up and just live with civil unions. There's no difference. We'd have an additional dozen states lined up to approve them if we drop our demands for gay marriage and support civil unions.


    Do more research. Plessy vs. Ferguson springs to mind.


    I don't know what that case has to do with this. But clearly public opinions have changed on gay rights. This is why we have republicans changing their views and becoming more moderate on the issue
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 14, 2009 11:03 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidHow bout we step up and just live with civil unions. There's no difference. We'd have an additional dozen states lined up to approve them if we drop our demands for gay marriage and support civil unions.


    Should never compromise in regard to civil rights. Civil unions are not treated the same from state-to-state, if they even exist. They aren't technically equal to marriage legally either or treated the same socially. The opposing side in California kept saying that domestic partnerships were the same to marriage so we don't need marriage. Well, they aren't the same legally, the requirements are different for example. They also wanted to get rid of domestic partnerships but didn't have enough people backing it.

    There is also the problem of 'good enough'. For example, in the last California supreme court hearing in regard to gay marriages one of the judges implied that since we had domestic partnerships why have marriage? See what happens with compromise? It becomes accepted and even used as a roadblock for further advancement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 11:03 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidHow bout we step up and just live with civil unions. There's no difference. We'd have an additional dozen states lined up to approve them if we drop our demands for gay marriage and support civil unions.


    Civil Unions do not give couples any rights on their own. Civil Union legislation has to stipulate which marriage rights are given to couples. If the Federal government ever recognizes same-sex marriages, it would have to have a separate provision that provides for all marriage rights to civil unions as well.

    It just doesn't make any sense from a legislative point of view making a three tiered rights system that is cumbersome already additionally cumbersome by adding a new category of civil unions. From a political point of view politicians voting for civil unions will come under just as much fire as those voting for marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 11:06 PM GMT
    Anto saidHow about states just not recognize marriages solemnized by a church and do away with church being involved in the state's business of licensing civil marriages?


    It doesn't matter who solemnizes the marriage. The problem is with the individual governments not issuing marriage licenses. A wedding in a church means jack shit if you don't get a marriage license.

    My landlords have been together for 12 years. A few years ago they got married at their UU church. They had the same ceremony every other couple has had, regardless of sex. The church doesn't give them any of the 1,300 rights associated with marriage, it is the municipal, state, and federal governments each.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 11:08 PM GMT
    well I just think we'd have a better chance to have more equality across the U.S. It's not fair that couples in Iowa are getting married, while in other states, such as New York (which may turn down a gay marriage bill, but could have approved a civil unions bill) same sex couple won't have ANY rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2009 11:29 PM GMT
    I have heard that argument before and I am not convinced.

    For example, Domestic Partnerships exist in NYC, Albany, Westchester County, Rochester, and a small town outside of Albany whose name escapes me. The rights given to those couples varies from municipality to municipality and the state has given zero rights to those people so far. In my city of Buffalo rights are given to members two of the dozens of unions representing municipal workers. So, this off-language legislation is so far a clusterfuck of well meaning, but bad legislation.

    Marriage equality has passed in the Assembly a dozen times now but was always defeated in the GOP control Senate. Now that the Dems control the Senate 32-30 we have only been able to get 20 yeses on the current bill.

    During the last election three Dems threatened to switch to the GOP if marriage equality, civil unions, or domestic partnerships were part of the Dem agenda. Senator Majority Leader Malcolm Smith convinced them to stay by giving them plum seats on committees. The issue isn't in nomenclature, the issue is ZOMG TEH GAYZ in the senate.

    So, if we are guaranteed to get zero rights as is, why settle for less when we are in a position to get them all?
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    May 14, 2009 11:53 PM GMT
    Three things on civil unions:

    1. The Republican party platform opposes civil unions. So it's not like we could say, "Okay, we'll settle for civil unions," and then automatically have them.

    2. We didn't start getting civil unions until we began pressing for marriage. However many rights we have, our opponents will fight for us to have less. If we give up on marriage and go for civil unions, we'll suddenly find civil unions under even greater attack.

    3. Settling for civil unions would be a betrayal of the young gays coming to grips with their sexuality. I have a blog post on this:
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/why-do-you-need-the-word-marriage
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    May 15, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    For those that howl about "Separation of Church and State" that is a concept. Show me somewhere that it is codified into US law. Freedom of religion is what is codified, not freedom from religion.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    May 15, 2009 6:57 AM GMT
    Actually, the phrase"freedom of religion" doesn't appear in the Constitution either. If you look at the First Amendment, "'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I'd say everything before the "of" is about freedom from religion.

    (BTW, how could one have the right to freedom of religion without the right to freedom from religion?)