NH Senate Vote on Gay Marriage Shows Benefits of Legislative Approach
While the manner in which the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages left much to be desired (perhaps all lawmaking leaves much to be desired), there is much to cheer about this process.
Just like the legislation in neighboring Vermont, the New Hampshire bill preserves religious freedom:
But undecided Democratic Senators secured concessions in the form of amendments in return for their commitments to vote in favor the bill during private meetings on Tuesday night. The key amendment would allow churches to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.
While many gay marriage advocates assure us that state recognition of gay marriage will preserve religious freedom, given the eagerness of courts to mandate “equality,” many social conservatives are understandably wary. That’s why it’s important to include a provision protecting the rights of religious institutions to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies that do not conform with their particular creed.
It would be nice as well if as Vermont, this bill barred “civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.”
That said, inclusion of that religious-freedom amendment shows the merits of going through elected legislatures.
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As a personal matter, I am not in favor of allowing gay marriage. Having said that, I am in favor of letting issues such as this be worked out through the democratic process. As a result, while I am disappointed that a state has enacted a law recognizing such marriages, I am heartened about the way it was done.
It is for the same reason that I believe Roe v. Wade ought to be overruled and the abortion question left to the states. I am opposed, personally, to abortion; it has become a too-common method of birth control. But if the people, speaking through their elected representative body, decide that the state should adopt a particular social policy, I must abide by that determination.
Put simply, social policy should never, ever be a question to be decided by a court; that is a remarkably undemocratic way of decision making and does violence to the polity (as the reaction to Roe v. Wade demonstrates).
Comment by MIK — April 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - April 29, 2009
They can put the religious provision in or leave it out. No one can force churches to marry anyone. This is a smokescreen from the religious right to avoid talking about the real issue. If no one can force a Catholic church to marry a Hindu and a Buddhist, then no one can force them to marry two dudes. So, it’s just fine to include this provision even though it’s completely unnecessary.
And yes, I think we are all happier with this going through the legislatures instead of the courts.
Comment by Houndentenor — April 29, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - April 29, 2009
They can put the religious provision in or leave it out. No one can force churches to marry anyone. This is a smokescreen from the religious right to avoid talking about the real issue. If no one can force a Catholic church to marry a Hindu and a Buddhist, then no one can force them to marry two dudes. So, it’s just fine to include this provision even though it’s completely unnecessary.
Exactly.
Comment by Levi — April 29, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - April 29, 2009
@2, 3
What they said. It’s not “important to include a provision protecting the rights of religious institutions to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies that do not conform with their particular creed.” It’s like passing a amendment that says, “PS. The First Amendment still applies.”
Comment by torrentprime — April 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - April 29, 2009
Yes tp, because McCain-Feingold shows us how dutiful the government is in protecting the first ammendment.
Let alone those posters who think that the constitution has parts that are more important than others.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 29, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - April 29, 2009
I’m somewhat uneasy that churches are “allowed” to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.
“Churches of New Hampshire!”, sez the Legislature. “We’re the government, and we’re here to help. Behold, we allow you religious freedom!”
I’d feel better if the idea of requiring a church to perform a nondoctrinal marriage never crossed anybody’s mind. Or–let alone the Constitution–was rejected as too ridiculous for consideration if it did.
Comment by gs — April 29, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - April 29, 2009
@5: Yes, because clearly if you can’t donate unlimited funds of money to political campaigns, according to one SCOTUS, the state can force churches to marry. (eyeroll). Not that I agree with Mc-F, btw, just noticing that your rather desperate attempt to drag a conservative issue into this discussion doesn’t for one moment make these amendments necessary or their mere presence in the gay marriage debate anything other than fear mongering by the right.
#6: That’s the point. Religions already are allowed to conduct their faith anyway they choose. Even hinting that they are not is more anti-gay fear mongering by the religious right, trying to scare people into voting down civil marriage equality.
Comment by torrentprime — April 29, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - April 29, 2009
These provisions seem redundant given the First Amendment and the similiar protections afforded in State constitutions. However, I have no objections to them and if they help put a certain fear to rest than that’s a good thing. Eh, maybe it would positive to have such redundancy in all legislation to reemphasize the liberties we cherish and sometimes neglect.
Comment by John — April 29, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - April 29, 2009
That hadn’t crossed my mind, #7 & #2, but it sounds plausible.
I oppose the religious right’s efforts to move the church onto state ground, and I am wary that the social-engineering left may try to extend the state into the church (& everywhere else).
Comment by gs — April 29, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - April 29, 2009
Gay activists sued to force eHarmony… a private company… to offer its services to same-sex couples. Does anyone realistically believe churches wouldn’t be on their hit-list, too?
After how the gays treated the Mormons in California, this fig-leaf of legal protection was probably used to mollify some moderates. All it takes is one activist judge to throw it out, though.
Comment by V the K — April 30, 2009 @ 9:05 am - April 30, 2009
V the K,
To be more precise, they forced E.harmony to completely redesign their system to accomodate a group it wasn’t designed for. Even though there are organizations that provide the same service for specialty groups.
But hey, lets trust the government to defend that right of association while we’re at it.
Comment by The Livewire — April 30, 2009 @ 11:25 am - April 30, 2009
Maine did this today :
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/newsupdate.php?updates/maine-senate-passes-same-sex-marriage
Comment by TnnsNE1 — April 30, 2009 @ 1:29 pm - April 30, 2009
#12, Good to read. While I’m on record preferring ‘Fred’ I’m glad to see action taken like adults and it going through legislation.
Comment by The Livewire — April 30, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - April 30, 2009