I had delayed in posting on New Hsmpshire’s recognition of same-sex marriages, thinking that I might have something profound and original to say, but (in past posts on legislative recognition of gay marriage), I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say about this.
I could go on about the hyperbolic language of the releases that have cluttered my e-mail boxes. It seems that most gay organizations don’t understand the meaning of the words “freedom” and “legal.” (It seems they believe you need some kind of government imprimatur to be free.)
When the folks at Freedom (sic) to Marry announce that New Hampshire Becomes Sixth State to Embrace Freedom to Marry, it almost sounds like people who had previously gotten married in the Granite State had to hide their unions lest they be persecuted. The same holds for those who announce that it’s now “legal” for gays to wed in New Hampshire. You mean, they had been jailed in the past for getting married?
All that said, I am pleased with the way things progressed in New Hampshire, particularly pleased with the final result for the same reasons I was pleased with the processes in Vermont and Maine. In the Granite State, we really saw the benefit of the legislative process. There, instead of judges announcing a decision in accordance with the court calender, there was a real back-and-forth between the elected Governor and the elected members of the legislature. The Framers would have been pleased at that deliberative process. If people don’t like the result, they can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box.
Governor John Lynch, an opponent of gay marriage, opposed the initial bill because of his concerns that it might not protect the liberty of churches to define marriage according to their creed. But, when he vetoed the initial legislation, he proposed a compromise, asking for language spelling out “that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes“:
The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.
It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
As we see, this process allowed the law-making body to address citizens’ concerns.
There’s something else in this process which could help advance gay marriage in other states. Advocates can show how they persuaded a gay marriage opponent (Lynch) to sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriage. With the appropriate religious liberty provisions in the statutes they propose, they may be able to persuade other such opponents.
And so I end on the subject of my next post (planned before I had learned of the good news from the Granite State.)
I tried to find out the exact language that was added to the bill. If the language stated that all organizations (religious or otherwise) have exclusive control over their doctrines, policies, teachings, and beliefs on marriage, I’m fine with that, as long as they have to follow the law like the rest of us.
I’m not so sure about the second part. First of all, if discrimination is okay here, why is it limited to church-related organizations? Only they are allowed to discriminate? And why is their discrimination limited to only same sex spouses?
It also seems to me that the wording of marriage over civil union shouldn’t make a difference. I thought civil unions were supposed to be equal in marriage, except in name. If that’s the case, (and assuming NH has anti-discrimination laws in the work place), then having the language of marriage may have been a step backwards.
If any organization doesn’t want to call a couples same sex marriage a marriage, that’s fine by me. But it seems to me that they have a legal obligation to provide the same benefits they do to opposite sex spouses.
I believe it’s here Pat.
interesting, it dismantles civil unions as well.
Also it doesn’t limit to just same sex spouces: ‘Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.’
Not that many Lutherans get married in Catholic churches, but makes it interesting for Missouri Synod churches.
I think Here is the original text.
I like the language in both these bills.
Yay New Hampshire! I can hear William Loeb (publisher of the Manchester Union Leader) rolling in his grave. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the legislative process is the best option for gay marriage. If people don’t like the result, then you’re free to toss out your legislator.
Thanks, Livewire. I didn’t have a problem with this part…
‘Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.’
It was the other part. But reading through the language, if I understand correctly, why should only religious organizations have the right to selectively discriminate? But I do see the language makes no distinction between same sex or opposite sex couples. So, my understanding is that if a Catholic charity does not want to give spousal benefits to any employee that was not married in a Catholic Church (or otherwise any legal marriage that the Church does not recognize) they could. Perhaps that was always the law. Also, I assume that if an organization does not believe in interracial marriage, they don’t have to provide benefits if a spouse is of a different race (they simply would have to follow any other anti-discrimination law).
Of course, I doubt the latter would happen, which is good. But I do see this as an opportunity for organizations to selectively provide benefits for all opposite sex spouses, even if the marriages are not recognized by that religion.
Anyway, I still could be misunderstanding the language here, and need more time to digest this. If my concerns are true, then, of course, the legislature can, in the future, vote to have any discriminatory language removed.
I think New Hampshire simply did what was right and just. It would be ideal to have public support for gay marriage. Logically it does take time for justice to be done, but that doesn’t mean justice must wait for the times and public support.
Simply put, right is right.
I think the process in New Hampshire was great–I just wish it had resulted in same-sex covenants based on historical gay relationships rather than co-opting a heterosexual tradition. I still don’t support gay marriage.
Ashpenaz, very well and succinctly said. Wish you could get your point of view out there. And not just because it’s very close to my own.
7 & 8: And what exactly is your opposition to same sex couples getting the same legal rights that heterosexual couples get when they obtain that government issued piece of paper?