From The Associated Press:
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage, but only if it the already-approved legislation is revised to strengthen protections for churches and people who worked for them.
"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded," Lynch told reporters. "New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections."
Lynch said he personally opposes gay marriage, but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."
Civil unions do not equal marriage. Separate, but equal, is never equal.
I read this in the local papers and I think the governor is right on. He wants the legislature to use the Connecticut model for ensuring people (read clergy) are not required to perform same sex marriages and others like organists are not required to play at them. It seems as though the legislature has no problem with the changes. That means all but Rhode Island in New England have approved.
ReplyDeleteIf Governor Lynch personally opposes "gay marriage" then he can always choose to not get "gay married." This sop to religionists, while on its face practical, betrays the widespread ignorance and prejudice that still accompanies this issue. Come on, people, who can cite even one case in history where a member of the clergy or an organist, or a florist, or a baker, or a deaconess was forced to assist at any wedding?
ReplyDeleteRemember when all those Roman Catholic priests in the south were arrested in the late 1960s after Loving v Virginia for refusing to marry mixed race couples? Never happened. Are people of most religious persuasions going to feel better by this quaint little "ok, but we still don't 'approve' "? Sadly not even likely.
Amelia, the gay folks in New Hampshire have given their OK to the changes. In the end, gay marriage will be the law, and that's good.
ReplyDeleteCrapaud, of course the sop is BS, but I like to give credit to folks who rise above their prejudices and do the right thing. It's about the deeds, luv!
Crapaud, A photographer was sued(and lost, Willock vs. Elane, N.M.) for refusing to photograph a ssu, and Yeshiva University in New York was ordered to allow same-sex couples in the married dormitories(a couple of years ago, before they started the push to legalize it in NY). It happens and churches around here expect more lawsuits. I'm sure everyone on this website believes that people shouldn't discriminate, but people fear being forced.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as the plaintiff in the photographer's suit was connected to, or employed by the Human Rights commission that decided the case, people around here think that many gays are running around looking for people to sue. As in--"Lets go see if that Christian boarding house will take us and if not, we'll be rich!" or " That church doesn't believe in SSM's let's ask the pastor for counselling or apply for jobs at summer camp and then get them for discrimination".
Putting in the protections will go farther in the long run, I think.
Chris H.
Well Chris H., I hope that allowing continuing public discrimination based upon personal religious beliefs really does "go farther" but I find it a slippery slope argument and altogether dangerous myself.
ReplyDeleteOnce the precedent has been established that it is legal to discriminate against same-sex couples, what is to stop the religionists from pushing the boundaries even farther? For instance, I won't provide my services to mixed-race couples, or foreign-born couples, or to people with certain mental health issues because my religion finds them sinful and repulsive?
If the law states clearly that it only allows discrimination against a certain class of people (LGBT) based upon religious beliefs, then it violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, does it not? I don't know that these kind of compromises really pay off in the end (see "No Women Priests" former dioceses of TEC, "Separate But Equal" laws in the American South, etc.) since accommodating prejudice within the law doesn't ever lead to a good end.
Chris, many folks have many fears, but, if you run a public business, discrimination is never in order. The boarding house shouldn't ban gay folks any more than it should ban people based on race. I really don't expect to see LGTB people lined up ready to sue.
ReplyDeleteNo clergy person can be ordered to perform any marriage.
The governor is against gay marriage, but he will sign the bill into law. The gay organizations in New Hampshire are OK with the changes in the legislation, so I see progress, and I applaud.
Priscilla, you make a valid point, but I don't see letting a desire for the perfect stand in the way of the good.