Gay marriage compromise fails in New Hampshire, is rejected

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

    May 20, 2009 9:52 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30851193/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 11:23 PM GMT
    QUOTE FROM STORY:

    MANCHESTER, N.H. - New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.

    The Democratic-controlled House voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after the Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines. An earlier version of the bill passed the state's House on March 26.

    Both chambers had been asked to approve compromise language that would have given religious institutions opposed to gay marriage legal protections, including the right to decline to marry same-sex couples.
    Gov. John Lynch had promised to sign the bill if those changes were made.



    And that seems to be the big sticking point, huh?

    As heavily, militantly in favor of across-the-board Gay Marriage as I am, I still believe a private religious institution has the right not to marry us, as I have the right not to practice their religion.

    It's a black eye for Gay freedom when we try to force any group or religion to like us. Better for us to go to, found, or create our own group rather than force anyone else to like us, as long as they don't legislate against us.

    Live and let live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 11:33 PM GMT
    Said churches would definitely hop on the bandwagon once they see the revenue it creates. Just a matter of time, just a matter of time.

    Somebody needs to tell the church's CEO (ha, that's what I call him) that there's a whole market out there with a LOT of potential business. It would probably improve his public image, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 12:03 AM GMT
    The compromise was, in my opinion, a cop out on the governor's behalf. Let's think about this logically. Neither the house nor the senate had a problem with the original bill, only the governor. And the compromise was to protect churches from being sued over refusal of same-sex marriage proposals. First of all, who in his or her right mind attends a church, let alone goes to a church knowing that church will not or does not accept gay marriage and will not perform said marriage and then will insist that they do so? It is one thing to challenge the government over legislation. It is another to go telling a private institution what it can and can not do, especially the church.

    Now what needs to happen is for the original bill to be reintroduced and hope that there are enough votes to override a governor's veto. I certainly hope it happens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 12:06 AM GMT
    I wonder what the bill actually said? What are the religious affiliations that would be exempted from recognizing the marriages? Would that include hospitals that have a religious affiliation? I have no problem with exempting churches from performing marriages but wonder what else could be involved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 12:11 AM GMT



    In Canada no church is required to marry gays. Once the government and courts trotted that one out, the religious had to shut up or look like they were doing what they WERE doing - attempting to circumvent/violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and influence the government over an issue that didn't at all affect them.


  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    May 21, 2009 12:13 AM GMT

    House Stalls Amendment To Same-Sex Marriage Bill
    Changes Sent To Committee, May Come Up Later In Session

    WMUR

    "This bill has nothing to do with gay marriage," Vaillancourt said. "This bill is a homophobic bill put in by a governor who was backed into a corner, hoisted on his own petard. My job is not to get the governor out of his corner. My job is to do what's best for society. It is not best to send a message across the country that we're going to give gay marriage with lots of strings attached."

    Critics have said that the amendment reflects religious protections already guaranteed on the state and federal constitutions and that the bill would not protect other businesses that don't want to participate in same-sex marriages. Some also criticized the process.



    http://www.wmur.com/politics/19514243/detail.html
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 21, 2009 12:22 AM GMT
    You know religious institutions would not have anything to fear if states just stopped recognizing their leaders as officiates of the state in regard to marriage solemnization.

    Stop doing that and religion gets protected without special treatment laws and the state no longer has to worry about supporting discrimination.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 21, 2009 12:25 AM GMT
    It is another to go telling a private institution what it can and can not do, especially the church.

    Even when they are performing a function of the state such as solemnizing civil marriages? Isn't that performing a public service?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 12:51 AM GMT
    Sounds like the proverbial pig-in-a-poke where an irrelevant issue is presented as an insurmountable obstacle. In the Hate Crimes Bill, the debate became does the Bill prevent prosecution of pedophiles. In this case the conversation centers on protecting churches.

    The US Constitution already protects churches from the government. It also provides equal protection under the law, the 14th Amendment.

    New Hampshire shows why the fight for marriage equality must be fought on a national level rather than state by state. Mississippi would never have allowed blacks to marry whites had it not been for the 14th Amendment.

    OFF THE NET AND INTO THE STREETS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 1:35 AM GMT
    Anto saidIt is another to go telling a private institution what it can and can not do, especially the church.

    Even when they are performing a function of the state such as solemnizing civil marriages? Isn't that performing a public service?


    A marriage performed in a church is NOT necessary or required to be recognized by the city, county, state or federal governments. Only a marriage license must be filed and the only marriage ceremony required is at least by a justice of the peace or city hall.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 21, 2009 1:54 AM GMT
    Erik, this in regard to state recognized officials, not the church in general. When a religious figure is an officiate of the state in regard to solemnizing marriages , that's when it becomes an issue.

    It doesn't make sense to say the church can discriminate how it wants even as an officiate of the state in regard to marriages
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 2:00 AM GMT
    Anto said, "When a religious figure is an officiate of the state in regard to solemnizing marriages, that's when it becomes an issue."

    Church is an officiate for their parishioners.

    I don't think you're going to see a Catholic wedding at a Muslim temple, and your position would indicate that they'd have to.


    icon_question.gif



    -Doug
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 21, 2009 2:08 AM GMT
    Of the state! C'mon you guys.
    Of the state!
    Of the state!
    Of the state!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 2:16 AM GMT


    Well being an officiate of the state shouldn't mean they have to marry everyone - churches never have and never will conduct atheist ceremonies.

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

    May 21, 2009 2:18 AM GMT
    Anto saidErik, this in regard to state recognized officials, not the church in general. When a religious figure is an officiate of the state in regard to solemnizing marriages , that's when it becomes an issue.

    It doesn't make sense to say the church can discriminate how it wants even as an officiate of the state in regard to marriages


    Anto, every protestant churches pastor is elected as pastor of that church by a vote of the congregation. While the pastors themselves are granted the power as a state officiant, in now does that require the church body to allow the pastor to perform weddings and most churches require you to me an active member to hold the wedding in the church to begin with. I know that the 1st Baptist Church of Charlotte would just as well burn to the ground before they hold a gay ceremony there. I also know from experience they are not welcoming to minorities for the most part in that church. Do I care? Absolutely not because I don't go to that church. And I am not going to attempt to force a church to accept me. I already have that in MCC of Charlotte. I still stand by my premise that it is or would be wrong to protest or picket churches that won't perform gay marriage when there are other churches that will. As to the pastors, I don't think they have to be made to perform the marriages because they do not work for the government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 2:24 AM GMT
    Were the churches exempted from any civil rights legislation in the past, such as not performing interracial marriages?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 2:30 AM GMT
    Caslon10750 saidWere the churches exempted from any civil rights legislation in the past, such not performing interracial marriages?


    There are still churches around today that will not perform or accept interracial marriages even though the federal government deemed them valid as of 1976. And one way around that was for the churches to say that they don't perform ceremonies for people who are not members.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 21, 2009 2:40 AM GMT
    It's like saying it's ok to not recognize gay marriages because gay marriages are illegal...

    Explain to me how it makes sense in principle of having the state which cannot discriminate but an officiating representative of it that can?

    See, doesn't make sense. If marriages were only a private institution, yeah, makes sense. But it's not, not in regard to civil marriages. Religious marriages CAN be discriminatory but we are not talking about religious marriages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 3:00 AM GMT
    Anto said, "Religious marriages CAN be discriminatory but we are not talking about religious marriages."


    Why would the non-religious demand a religious church ceremony?

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

    May 21, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    metta8 said"This bill has nothing to do with gay marriage," Vaillancourt said. "This bill is a homophobic bill put in by a governor who was backed into a corner, hoisted on his own petard. My job is not to get the governor out of his corner. My job is to do what's best for society. It is not best to send a message across the country that we're going to give gay marriage with lots of strings attached."

    Sounds like the homophobic Governor got what he wanted, no gay marriage bill. It was the Governor who won, not Vaillancourt, who's the one actually hoisted on a petard of his own making.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 3:26 AM GMT
    What was there to lose if they passed this. So what if the law already protects churches? So what if you add more explicitly clear language. I don't see how it's homophobic. None of you seemed to have been opposed to the idea till you were shocked that it was turned down. This makes no sense, they knew if they don't pass this, they wont get marriage equality in NH. I will not blame the governor for this setback at all. Vermont did it this way, and no one criticized.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 3:31 AM GMT
    This Church provision sounds like a bone was tossed to those in districts that are near the middle and lean right. That way, they can say to their constituents "hey, I stood up and protected our churches" blah blah blah. It is total bull shit but lets people support marriage equality without pissing off everyone in district.

    Perhaps it is a good thing some people didn't vote for it because of the bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 3:38 AM GMT
    Governor Lynch's conditions for signing the bill were the provisions that were added to the legislation allowing religious groups to determine whether they would extend "services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges" based on marriage status. For example, married housing, counseling services, renting reception space, and allowing civil marriage ceremonies on their properties. This was raised by House Republicans who complained that the law would "lead to lawsuits against even non-clergy, those with strong religious beliefs that prevent them from participating in any phase of a gay marriage, such as catering service or photography." (Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!)

    Essentially, a few Democrats in the NH House said no to further discrimination against gays and lesbians. Maybe it's time even we ourselves stop settling for the crumbs the straight world throws us. As Martin Luther King, Jr said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

    The bill will now go to a mediating/conference committee, which will attempt to resolve the differences between the house and senate.

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

    May 21, 2009 3:40 AM GMT
    Anto saidIt's like saying it's ok to not recognize gay marriages because gay marriages are illegal...

    Explain to me how it makes sense in principle of having the state which cannot discriminate but an officiating representative of it that can?

    See, doesn't make sense. If marriages were only a private institution, yeah, makes sense. But it's not, not in regard to civil marriages. Religious marriages CAN be discriminatory but we are not talking about religious marriages.


    It does make sense. The government has no business telling the church what it can and can not do anymore than the church has no business telling the government what it can and can not do (yeah religious right-whatever, not the subject here). When you talk about an officiant, that includes pastors, but they are not governed the same way city hall or justice of the peace are. Do you think a cruise ship captain should not be allowed to perform gay marriage? The captain is vested by his state to perform marriages if asked. Your point is not about civil marriages. The church being protected provision is about marriage ceremonies taking place in the church. No civil marriage takes place in the church because a church ceremony is not necessary to be married. So again, a pastor is not obligated to perform a gay marriage if his or her congregation says so just as no one has the right to tell my church NOT to perform those very same gay marriage ceremonies.