Comments on: NH Senate Vote on Gay Marriage Shows Benefits of Legislative Approach

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:46:11 +0000

#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.

By: TnnsNE1

TnnsNE1 — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:29:19 +0000

Maine did this today :
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/newsupdate.php?updates/maine-senate-passes-same-sex-marriage

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:25:02 +0000

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.

By: V the K

V the K — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:05:17 +0000

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.

By: gs

gs — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:43:02 +0000

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…

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).

By: John

John — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:11:04 +0000

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.

By: torrentprime

torrentprime — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:04:54 +0000

@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.

By: gs

gs — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:29 +0000

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.

By: The_Livewire

The_Livewire — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:05:09 +0000

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.

By: torrentprime

torrentprime — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:33:18 +0000

@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.”

By: Levi

Levi — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:22:50 +0000

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, itâ€™s just fine to include this provision even though itâ€™s completely unnecessary.

Exactly.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:03:21 +0000

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.

By: MIK

MIK — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:52:44 +0000

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).