N.H. says he'll legalize gay marriage if they add religious exemptions

[chrismac]

Link

“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.

“We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

“I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. First off, Gov. Lynch said he believes civil unions are sufficient for gay couples, and that he believes marriage is between man and woman. Either that was a lie, or he pussed out of his religious belief so liberals will like him. The issue of religious exemptions will appease no one. Religious people who use instances where religious organizations have had to yield to the wishes of the gay community use these anecdotes as a cautionary tale against legalizing stuff like gay marriage as a way to appease gays and lesbians...even if they're not entitled to it. I don't think anyone is really worried about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I've never thought "slights to religious freedom" would come directly from gay marriage, though I've always thought gay marriage would receive a boost in support every time we do something to make religious belief look petty and raggedy and insignificant. Like Gov. Lynch has done.

"Religious protections" strike me as a lame attempt at a consolation prize. It's just a glib way of saying, "you lost, gays won, thanks for playing!"

There is no civil right to gay marriage. There is no constitutional right being infringed upon by not legalizing gay marriage. There is no social mandate to legalize gay marriage (there aren't that many gay couples period, especially in NH, and there aren't that many who want to marry). This is just partisan politics and ignoring the will of the people.

 

[KittenKoder]

Religions are already protected, just because it's legal doesn't mean the churches have to do it, nor does it mean they have to support it, nor do the churches even have to recognize it. That's a spin.

 

[chrismac]

It's highly doubtful a church will be forced to actually marry a gay couple. That doesn't even sound right. What could, and likely will happen is preachers who are also ordained by the state to solemnize marriage will either have to marry same-sex couples or lose their ability to marry anyone.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's highly doubtful a church will be forced to actually marry a gay couple. That doesn't even sound right. What could, and likely will happen is preachers who are also ordained by the state to solemnize marriage will either have to marry same-sex couples or lose their ability to marry anyone.

Doubt it, they don't have to marry everyone as it is. Many preachers don't marry pagans (those openly pagan) or Muslim, Jewish, etc. but usually that doesn't come up because there are plenty of religious leaders in those religions anyhow and if not, a Justice of the Peace does it, and that's their job so they don't have a place to complain about it. How many couples do you know would want to be married by someone who doesn't want to marry them, it's not logical.

 

[Pyrite]

Link

“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.

“We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

“I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. First off, Gov. Lynch said he believes civil unions are sufficient for gay couples, and that he believes marriage is between man and woman. Either that was a lie, or he pussed out of his religious belief so liberals will like him. The issue of religious exemptions will appease no one. Religious people who use instances where religious organizations have had to yield to the wishes of the gay community use these anecdotes as a cautionary tale against legalizing stuff like gay marriage as a way to appease gays and lesbians...even if they're not entitled to it. I don't think anyone is really worried about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I've never thought "slights to religious freedom" would come directly from gay marriage, though I've always thought gay marriage would receive a boost in support every time we do something to make religious belief look petty and raggedy and insignificant. Like Gov. Lynch has done.

"Religious protections" strike me as a lame attempt at a consolation prize. It's just a glib way of saying, "you lost, gays won, thanks for playing!"

There is no civil right to gay marriage. There is no constitutional right being infringed upon by not legalizing gay marriage. There is no social mandate to legalize gay marriage (there aren't that many gay couples period, especially in NH, and there aren't that many who want to marry). This is just partisan politics and ignoring the will of the people.

If the people didn't want equality for gays they shouldn't have elected a legistature that would vote for a bill granting gays equality.

 

[chrismac]

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile. The citizens don't have a crystal ball, and they voted for the Governor who said marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Care4all]

Religious institutions should not be forced to marry anyone, period.

That would be breaking the first amendment for our government to force such....

 

[Nik]

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile. The citizens don't have a crystal ball, and they voted for the Governor who said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Aww. The people wanted to discriminate and they don't get too. Hold on while I get out the worlds tiniest violin.

 

[chrismac]

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile. The citizens don't have a crystal ball, and they voted for the Governor who said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Aww. The people wanted to discriminate and they don't get too. Hold on while I get out the worlds tiniest violin.

That's the same attitude I have about people who whine about gay couples not being able to marry.

 

[Nik]

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile. The citizens don't have a crystal ball, and they voted for the Governor who said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Aww. The people wanted to discriminate and they don't get too. Hold on while I get out the worlds tiniest violin.

That's the same attitude I have about people who whine about gay couples not being able to marry.

Of course you wouldn't feel bad that people get discriminated against. No surprise there.

 

[Pyrite]

That's the same attitude I have about people who whine about mixed race couples not being able to marry.

Yes, you are effectively in the same camp as supporters of anti-miscegenation laws. I hope you feel proud of yourself.

 

[KittenKoder]

Religious institutions should not be forced to marry anyone, period.

That would be breaking the first amendment for our government to force such....

They aren't, and would not be even if gay marriage is legal everywhere.

 

[Care4all]

Religious institutions should not be forced to marry anyone, period.

That would be breaking the first amendment for our government to force such....

They aren't, and would not be even if gay marriage is legal everywhere.

Right, that is my opinion as well....! I can't see this ever being done by our government...but 25 years ago, I would have never imagined that Gays marrying would ever be at issue either...honest to goodness, I speak the truth....anything can happen with time....learned this lesson many times over since my youth.

Care

 

[chrismac]

That's the same attitude I have about people who whine about mixed race couples not being able to marry.

Yes, you are effectively in the same camp as supporters of anti-miscegenation laws. I hope you feel proud of yourself.

Well, except they were defending laws that penalized interracial couples by throwing them in jail. I'm merely saying marriage should stay between one man and one woman. But I get how you might get confused by your arbitrary little pissy edit there.

 

[Pyrite]

Well, except they were defending laws that penalized interracial couples by throwing them in jail. I'm merely saying marriage should stay between one man and one woman. But I get how you might get confused by your arbitrary little pissy edit there.

So it would be OK with you if the state had never come around to legalizing mixed-race marriages? how is what you are saying fundamentally different from what people fifty years ago were saying when they said that marriage should stay between two people of the same race?