Asterisk

Here’s some video you’ve probably seen by now. New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott (R) is speaking before a Judiciary Committee Meeting on a bill to undo New Hampshire’s new gay marriage law.

Rep. Elliott displays a two-pronged attack plan: 1) Gross ‘em out and 2) lie through your teeth. Where did she learn them? Though the tactics certainly aren’t unknown in anti-gay circles, they’re best displayed by two rabid anti-gay foes.

In September 2009, a group of far-Right Wing fanatics converged in St. Louis for a two-day “How to Take America Back” conference. Organized by a veritable Who’s Who of anti-gay crusaders, the conference included a workshop called “How to Counter the Homosexual Extremist Movement.” The workshop was hosted by two anti-gay luminaries with very specific skills.

The first instructor was Matt Barber. Barber has a bunch of made up titles with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, deals primarily in the Ick Factor. Right Wing Watch had this to say about the workshop:

There was some small disagreement about how much people should rely on religious arguments in the public sphere, with Matt Barber urging people to focus on the “ick” factor around gay sex and on claims that homosexuality is a health threat, which he called the movement’s “Achilles heel.”

The goal here is to divert from a civil and philosophical discussion of ideas to an irrational one of embarrassment and propriety. And it’s not the only time Barber’s tried to gross people out. Several years ago he famously referred to gay marriage as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’

Barber’s co-instructor at September’s anti-gay workshop was none other than Brian Camenker, head of SPLC-certified hate group Mass Resistance.

Cameker’s weapon of choice is the outrageous “Think of the Children!” lie. He’s the driving force behind the oft-repeated but long-disproven Kevin Jennings charges, and the David Parker/Mad Dad lie.

Let’s take another look at Rep. Elliott’s performance, because I’d bet money that she was in that workshop in September. (The entire hearing is embedded below in four parts. Note that the old man on Elliott’s right and the woman with the deadpan expression on her left are decidedly against the amendment.)

Rep. Elliott had some trouble out of the gate with the Ick part. First of all, “wiggling it around in excrement”? I think her husband might benefit from some remedial courses. Secondly, her transition from “Grossly specific” to “It could happen to you!” was downright clumsy. She needs to practice that more. (Also interesting was her insinuation that anal sex = rape with the question “Would you let that be done to you?”)

As for the outrageous lie, this afternoon Rep. Elliott released a statement admitting what the Nashua, NH school board and the rest of us already knew: Nancy Elliott was lying. There was no gay porn in 5th grade classes. From today’s prepared statement to the Judiciary Committee:

This statement made in the Judiciary Committee had caused some controversy so I went back to my source for the statement to verify the information that I had received. I found that I could not confirm the accuracy of the information.

I am presenting this letter at the first committee meeting of Judiciary since last Tuesday. I do so at the earliest opportunity in order to make clear I am withdrawing what I said regarding the Nashua schools.

I would like to apologize to Judiciary Committee, the Nashua public schools and its employees and the speaker as well as anyone else affected by what I said.

Apology or no, Rep. Elliott’s mission was successful. As we know from Brian Camenker’s exploits, getting the lie on record is what counts. If Rep. Elliott’s amendment passes and is presented for a popular vote, people predisposed to believe her lie will do one of two things. They’ll either forget that she retracted her statement (notice how she was as carefully non-specific in her apology as she was specific in her lie), or if they remember, they’ll fear that it might happen.

Barber and Camenker must be proud. I wonder if they’ll send her a certificate.

After a long and completely unnecessary battle, the legislature of New Hampshire has approved a marriage equality bill that meets Governor John Lynch’s needless and already accounted for fears about religious freedom.

The Union Leader reports that the NH Senate approved a new compromise bill (14-10) late this morning, with the House following suit this afternoon (198-176). Governor Lynch signed the bill at around 5:20 PM. The new law takes effect January 1, 2010.

“Let’s vote this one last time. Church and state should be separate,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, who helped craft the final compromise language.

In the Senate, Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Plymouth, said the language in the amendment strikes a balance that provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”

So way to go, New Hampshire, the sixth state in the Union to recognize equality in marriage! Add another star to the flag!

Two votes separated the winners from the losers in the New Hampshire House today. This time, we’re on the losing side. The Washington Blade is reporting that the bill requested by the governor to assure that religious institutions won’t be required to officiate same-sex weddings has failed by a vote of 188-186.

A similar bill had previously passed in the House by a similarly slim margin. My question: Which of the unnecessary changes that their side requested convinced them to change their votes?

The House later voted to return the bill to committee, leading to a re-vote sometime in the next two weeks.

Congratulations, New Hampshire! You win the Drama Queen award!

Well this is an interesting development. The New Hampshire Union-Leader is reporting this afternoon that New Hampshire Governor Jim Lynch is almost ready to sign the state’s marriage equality bill, approved by both houses of Congress last month. Governor Lynch released the following statement (excerpted) today.

“I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.

“I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

“Throughout history, our society’s views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

“That is what I believe we must do today.

“But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

“This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

“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 a surprise, to say the least. As I’ve said before, the religious objection business is such a non-issue that I don’t understand why reasonably intelligent people don’t see that the separation between civil marriage and marriages as granted by a religion is just that: A SEPARATION.

But hey, if that’s what it takes, let’s look at the governor’s new language. (I’ve provided links to the referenced RSAs.)

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire.

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

I’m not a law-talkin’ guy, but this seems to exempt any organization even tangentially connected to a religious institution from recognizing or providing service for anything even remotely connected to a gay couple’s marriage.

Would Governor Lynch’s new language make it legal, for example, for a hospital that gets funding from the Methodist church to not recognize a married lesbian’s rights in end-of-life decisions? Would it become legal for a Baptist adoption agency that gets public funding not to place a child with a married gay couple? If a florist takes a donation from the Knights of Columbus, does that mean they can discriminate against gays?

I’m a cynic by nature. I just can’t kick the feeling that this is a way to give the word ‘marriage’ but not the legal rights and protections associated with the word.

Once the legal eagles assure us that this proposed language wouldn’t do that, I’ll give a cheer for another step toward equality.

I hesitate to bring this up because it’s been a great day for the cause, but while everybody else is looking at this great win, I’m looking for the “gotcha”. Unfortunately, I think I found one.

I’m talking about the bill just passed by the New Hampshire Legislature that (if the governor signs it) permits gay marriage in the state. That’s all great, but I noticed something while I was reading the bill (Yes, I actually read these things.) at the state’s official website.

One effect of this legislation is that New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) chapter 457:4 is amended (proposed changes in bold):

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.

Look, I don’t want to be a dick about this, but is there a reason that the marriageable age is different for gays than it is for straight folks? Why didn’t they make the marriageable ages–dare I say it–equal to the established age?

Before I go too far off the deep end, let’s note that the age of consent is defined in section 457:5 as 18 for both genders, and that people between the marriageable age and the age of consent require parental consent and court permission as permitted in section 457:6.

For all I know, this is just a leftover of bygone days and marriages under 18 haven’t been granted for years, making the entire argument moot. But if that’s the case, why not use this opportunity to wipe the whole 14/13 section out? If marriages between people under the age of consent are still granted in the state, this seems to inject new discriminatory language that recognizes an earlier age of maturity for straights than it does for lesbians and gays.

And I don’t like that. I don’t like it one bit.