(My name is Gene Robinson) … and I serve as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. Last June my partner of 28 years and I, Mark Andrew and I, were joined in a civil union, for which we are very grateful.
I’m here to ask your support in making the promise of equality under the law a reality in New Hampshire by allowing us to translate that second class status into the civil right of marriage.
Since January 1, 2008, some 600 civil unions have been enacted. Think about what you were told eighteen months ago by those who wanted you to be fearful of this action.
Has western civilization as we know it come to an end?
Has your marriage to your opposite sex partner been undermined, in any way, by my professed love for and commitment to my partner?
Has the family been eroded as a cornerstone of our society, or has it been strengthened by the solemn and genuine commitments taken on by gay and lesbian couples in this state?
Does any reasonable person believe that these 600 committed couples threaten the state or the society or your marriages in any way?
The fears were unfounded.
It turns out that you were right to do what you did. And now it is time to finish what you started, by making our relationships equal in the eyes of the law, and in the minds of the public, by granting marriage equality under the law to all citizens of New Hampshire.
Let me briefly speak to two concerns you might have, especially as it relates to people of faith.
First, those who would continue to discriminate against some of our citizens, would tell you that we are changing the definition and meaning of marriage. They are absolutely right. But what they are WRONG about is in claiming that marriage has always had ONE meaning, up until now.
Marriage for men in the Old Testament included multiple wives, not to mention concubines, if you were wealthy enough. Marriage until the Middle Ages was all about property, legitimacy of heirs, and inheritance rights. So decidedly so that common people and serfs on an estate were not even encouraged to be married, since there was nothing to inherit, anyways.
While marriage has served many purposes historically, including procreation, we have never prohibited from marrying, those unable to procreate, either because of infertility or advanced age.
And just 40 years ago, we changed the definition of marriage to include people of different races, a change in definition that allowed Barack Obama’s parents to be married. The definition of marriage has always been evolving and the inclusion of same gender partners is simply the next logical revision of that evolution.
The second, the thing I most want you to remember most from my testimony is this: Religions and people of faith have nothing to fear from this bill.
Indeed, many congregations, including those here in the Diocese of New Hampshire, already celebrate and bless the uniting of two people of the same gender in love, responsibility and mutual commitment.
Permitting two people of the same sex to declare their love for one another and to assume the responsibilities of civil marriage will affect religion in no way. House Bill 436 makes very explicit the continuing right that no religious organization or clergy person is obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage in violation of their First Amendment freedom of religion. No denomination or faith tradition would be required to approve of the marriage of two same gender citizens.
Let’s be clear. Civil marriage is a civil action which has gotten confused in our society because clergy have been permitted to act as agents of the state in signing marriage licenses and thereby enacting civil marriages.
The state affects a civil marriage. Churches, synagogs and mosques my pronounce God’s blessings on these marriages, if they choose, but civil marriages are still bona fide marriages even if they are not presided over by a member of the clergy. All the rights, privileges and responsibilities of civil marriage pertain, even if there was nothing religious involved or intended. This is clearer in countries like France, where everyone is married at the mayor’s office. Them those couples who are religious and desire a blessing, go to their place of worship for such a service.
Civil marriage is a civil act, proven by the reality that when a marriage becomes unraveled, the couple doesn’t go back to the church or synagog, where the service was performed, to dissolve that marriage, but to the state and its courts.
Holy matrimony, that is, affirming the vows made in marriage in the presence of God and God’s church, will remain undisturbed or changed in any way. And no denomination or faith tradition will be required to approve of the marriage of two same gender citizens.
As a religious person and bishop of the Church, permit me to ask my religious colleagues who might object to marriage equality:
Is it right to force our religious beliefs on the rest of the citizens of this state? Just because my particular faith does not bless such marriages, does that mean that this civil right to marriage should be denied to citizens of New Hampshire?
Just as we cherish our rights as religious people not to be infringed upon by the state, so the state should not be infringed upon by the particular beliefs of the Church.One purpose of the state is to protect equally all of its citizens, no matter its religious beliefs. Later today you will make sure that our transgender citizens are protected from violence and discrimination, a bill I support wholeheartedly. And in this bill, you are merely giving all of our citizens the same and equal right to live productive lives in stable and recognized marriages. Equal protection under the law is the dream and promise of America.
There is hardly a more oft repeated phrase in the Old and New Testaments than this: “Be not afraid”. Ladies and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, don’t let the religious opponents to marriage equality you will hear from today and in the days to come make you afraid to do what is right. As Americans we are promised equal protection under the law, and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Be not afraid to make this equal protection a reality for all the citizens of New Hampshire.
Thank you.
He’s wrong about this: “And no denomination or faith tradition will be required to approve of the marriage of two same gender citizens.”
<
p>I think all states have a law that says it is illegal to knowingly officiate a marriage that would be illegal. So imagine this scenario: A gay man gets married to his partner, but then a year later he has a religious experience and decides to try the “ex-gay” life, so he leaves his husband and joins a church, and lo and behold he meets a woman in the congregation and they want to get married, and the minister and the whole congregation all think this is a wonderful turn of events and they plan a wedding.
<
p>But, they can’t do it, because the minister and the whole congregation is compelled to recognize the authority of the state that says that that man is already married. They are compelled to recognize same-sex marriage. A minister cannot just ignore the state, the state says who is married and who isn’t. The denomination might not be required to “approve” of the marriage in the sense of being happy about it, but they have to approve of it in the sense of recognizing and accepting it as marriage and binding over them. They aren’t interested in performing a ceremonial marriage that doesn’t change the couple’s legal and civil status in the outside world, like UU churches used to do for same-sex couples back in the day, what the church wants to perform and celebrate is a change in the couple’s legal status.
<
p>Marriage is entirely a civil institution, and the state merely lets people solemnize their union and become legally married in whatever setting the couple believes is most appropriate and meaningful. The state has an interest in the solemnization being truly solemn and taken as seriously as possible, and that is furthered by allowing people to take their vows and change their legal status in their church and with the blessings and instructions of their church and in front of their family and friends.
You almost answered your own question. The law may need to be tweaked to clearly deliniate the religious vs. civil legitimacy. Hopefully the man in your scenario would obtain a divorce so that his next marriage would be legitimate in every sense. I would agree that a church marriage would be civilly invalid if the state recognizes either party as still being married. Clearly in this context, the Bishop and others who’ve made similar arguments mean that no church will be forced to solemnize a same-sex union.
they’re forced to respect it, just as if it was an existing marriage to a woman.
<
p>And I don’t like this idea of a “church marriage” being “civilly invalid” as if there was still some value and validity to the church marriage. The church and the congregation and the couple are all thinking of them being married outside the church walls, on the streets and in the supermarket and in their home and when they travel around the world to distant lands. What they are solemnizing is the civil legal union being respected in other churches and in everyone else’s home, not just their own.
it is abundantly clear that the government only recognizes civil marriages as valid. you can get religiously “married” in a church, but if you don’t sign a civil marriage license, you are not considered married by the government. this hasn’t changed with the advent of marriage equality. this is the way it’s always been in the united states.