The New Hampshire House of Representatives has approved an amended bill to permit lesbians and gays to marry in the state. The bill now heads to Governor John Lynch’s desk. From the Union Leader:
House Bill 436, which extends the state’s marriage laws to include couples of any sex, won House approval by a vote of 178-167. The bill’s wording differs from the version the House passed in March, but its effect is basically the same.
“Any person … may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender,” the bill states.
Gov. Lynch now has the final say on gay marriage. He did not reveal his next move when speaking with reporters. He has said that he thinks the word marriage should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman.
Today, he said, “I have a responsibility as governor to do what I think is best for the people of New Hampshire. I will continue to talk with the Legislature and with the people of New Hampshire about that bill.”
You may remember that the NH House passed a bill back in March. Today’s bill reflects the changes made in the bill passed by the NH Senate last week.
That’s the second equality bill sent to a governor’s desk in two days. Progress indeed.
This morning NOM released their first ad with Miss California. She doesn’t have a speaking role (it’s not her strong suit, after all), but they used footage of the broadcast to open the ad.
Okay, so first things first. Of what relevance is it that Miss California is “young”? That seems like an extraneous fact to throw in, as if her being young made the reaction to her answer more wrong. Which, of course, would be silly.
More importantly, this ad, just like “Gathering Storm”, is chock full of misrepresentations.
Opinions from “some of the nation’s foremost scholars” are mentioned, all of which proclaim that the sky is falling. Let’s take them one by one.
But first, let’s look at the slight-of-hand NOM has tried to pull off here. At the 0:45 mark in the video, a quote goes by over the blurry image of a document. Then that one disappears and is replaced by another quote over the blurry image of another document. I went hunting for these quotes (I’ll get to them in a minute), and found something amazing.
They come from the same document. While it’s technically true that the letter in question was signed by a team of lawyers, NOM clearly intended for the audience to believe they were from separate documents. In fact, they’re from the same page of that letter.
The letter (pdf here) was sent last week to Connecticut Speaker of the House Christopher G. Donovan by professors Thomas Berg of the University of St. Thomas, Carl Esbeck of the University of Missouri, Richard Garnett of the University of Notre Dame and Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University. Here are the quotes.
“will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict…”
“effects would be…devastating”
(The text replaced by elipses in the second quote is “widespread and”. I guess they didn’t want it to be too obvious that the quotes were written by the same person.)
In the letter, the four present the argument that that codifying marriage equality would require businesses to recognize the legal marriages and not discriminate against those individuals.
Examples are provided, including false examples in footnote 5. One reference is the New Mexico photography studio that was told that they could not illegally refuse public accommodation as defined in §12181 (7)(f) and codified in §12182(b)(1)(A)(i). This, of course, has nothing to do with individual religious freedom, but that’s never stopped the anti-gay crowd before.
Also referenced is the case of the United Methodist owned Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which for several decades took advantage of a tax credit by allowing the pavilion and attached boardwalk to be used as public land and then was found to have violated the rights of a lesbian couple by refusing to grant them use of the public land for a commitment ceremony. Public land = Used by the entire public, even the parts that disagree with you.
But this letter doesn’t just have the problem of misused examples that have nothing to do with religious liberty. In addition, the authors rely heavily on the writings of Marc D. Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, who is quoted in the letter as saying “[n]o one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them.”
DOT DOT DOT
No, civil marriage equality doesn’t mean preachers will be forced to perform religious marriages they don’t want to. Of course not. Even NOM-cited documents draw that obvious conclusion. But that’s a major plank of the anti-equality platform that groups like NOM like to claim.
Did they just not expect people to check this out?
I have trouble wrapping my head around the whole premise of the ad, that marriage equality will mean that people will have to treat LGBT people like everybody else with regard to marriage. Why is that a problem? Why do they expect debate over whether Christians can be exempt from complying with civil rights laws?
We aren’t trying to make anybody stop speaking. We aren’t telling people that they can’t act with bigotry. We’re saying that America is better than the current laws, and that the basic premise of liberty for all includes LGBT Americans. Why is this controversial?
Finally, I looked up the Joe Solomonese/Hardball clip. It’s from an April 8, 2009 episode and includes commentary (such as it is) by NOM president Maggie Gallagher. In fact, on the new commercial, they cover her up with a Hardball logo. Did they just not want people to know she was there? Here’s the clip. It’s almost nine minutes, but it’s very important to know the truth behind the Religious Right’s rhetoric.
In closing, yes, Maggie Gallagher, you are lying. Yes, you are promoting bigotry. Stop it. Let us (all of us) move on with our lives in peace.
Concord – A bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire passed the Senate today on a 13-11 vote.
The bill, amended on the Senate floor, draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage, and says that any two individuals have a right to join together in a civil marriage.
Last week Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Reynolds, opposed the bill and voted with a committee majority that it should be killed. She said voters in her district told her they favor the legislation, and urged the Senate to vote for an amendment that was drawn up Tuesday night.
She said the wording “gives everyone in the state the right to seek a civil marriage … This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides in this debate and meets our shared goals of equality in state laws for all the people of New Hampshire. The people of this sate share the core values of equality for all, tolerance and acceptance regardless of our differences”
Republicans voted in a block against the measure, joined by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester.
Does this mean we’ll soon be adding another star to the marriage equality flag? Possibly, but there’s a rough road ahead. The governor’s against it, and neither the House nor the Senate has a veto-proof majority, as the Vermont legislature had. We’ll be sweating for every single vote!
I have to say, these amendments clarifying the difference between religious and civil marriage are a bit annoying. On the one hand, if it gets the bill through, it’s fine because the law was pretty doggone clear on the separation in the first place. On the other, it lends credibility to the notion that we want the government to take over religious institutions, which just isn’t true. For now it’s a grin-and-bear-it compromise, but it’s frustrating.
Stay tuned for further news as it becomes available.
News is coming fast and furious these days. While we wait for the House of Representatives in Vermont to decide on gay marriage, their next door neighbor has made up its mind. More from Tom Fahey of the UnionLeader.com.
The New Hampshire House narrowly passed a bill today that would allow gay couples to marry.
The final vote on HB 556 was 186-179, and came after nearly three hours of debate.
The bill was amended today to state that no clergy of any religion could be required under the bill to officiate at a same-sex marriage.
Rep. David Pierce, D-Etna, in arguing for passage, told House members, “Both sides of this debate believe in the institution of marriage,” said. “We all want the same things during our time on earth. It doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay.”
Rep. Laura Gandia, R-Litchfield, warned it will make children of this and future generations “guinea pigs in a massive social experiment that is irreversible.”
Democrats were joined by about a dozen Republicans in passing the bill.
The final vote followed a 183-182 vote against passing the bill, an unsuccessful 177-189 attempt to kill it, and a failed effort to postpone it for more work.
In a statement after the vote, state GOP chairman John H. Sununu called the vote “another attempt by the liberal Democrats in the Legislature to impose their San Francisco agenda on the State of New Hampshire.”
The former governor said, “The small margin by which the bill passed should encourage Governor Lynch to take a stand with a clear ‘I will veto this bill if it gets to my desk’ message.”
With a governor who opposes gay marriage and a far from veto-proof margin, there’s little chance of this bill becoming law. Still, thanks to the 51% of House who voted against fear and inequality, there’s a chance.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world around him; the unreasonable man expects the world to adapt to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable men. — George Bernard Shaw
