Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation
CONCORD – Gov. John Lynch released the following statement today regarding same-sex legislation in New Hampshire:
“The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides.
“My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.
“In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.
“Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination.
“At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term ‘civil union’ to ‘civil marriage.’ Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change.
“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.
“The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.
“But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.
“I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.
“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.
Below is the language Gov. Lynch has proposed for the same Sex legislation.
# # #
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.
It seems that these provisions seek to repeat guarantees toward religious organizations that are already set in law. I’m not sure if it changes anything legally, as much as offers a sop to easily confused people yammering about their deep misunderstanding of the concept of religious freedom.
the amendment seems to go farther than 1st amendment guarantees by giving cover to bigoted people even supervised by a religious organization, for example. if it’s just a wordy restatement of the 1st amendment, so be it, but i’d like to hear that from a lawyer or some other legal professional.
<
p>remember, some “religious organizations” receive public funds. the way i read this amendment, such orgs could discriminate against me and still receive state funds. some properties owned by religious orgs are given tax breaks because they are “public accomodations”, yet this amendment would allow them to discriminate and still get the tax break. are you familiar with the ocean grove, nj case?
Obama has made it clear that bigotry in the name of religion is okay, and that the federal government will be happy to fund that. So it is no surprise that Lynch is willing to go along with it.
<
p>This is a small step backward for the separation of church and state, and a big step forward for equality, so I think the trade-off is unpleasant but worthwhile.
then i think the amendment should be rejected and lynch forced to veto the bill or back off. i think it would be a terrible precedent to be forced to erode anti-discrimination protections in order to be “given” access to other civil institutions. if this is what is happening (and again, i don’t know – i’d like some clarification), then lynch should be expelled from the democratic party. there are just some deals you don’t ask unpopular minorities to make, and this looks like one that should be on the prohibited list.
but there are consequences to denying people full marriage over the next few years should the bill actually be vetoed – and we need to keep the momentum flowing.
<
p>If something outrageous happens because of Lynch’s language, it could be fixed later. By passing marriage equality, it only makes our lobby that much more powerful in NH. We’ll build our marriage equality electoral lead over the next few years, not see it reduced. So if egregious things happen over the next 4 or 5 years, I think it’s something we could go back and fix later. They may even be fixed in the courts, if they break church and state separation principles.
… but it’s political cover.
<
p>Ed Brayton has highlighted an involved discussion on religious liberty provisions in proposed marriage legislation, in the context of how the issue is playing out in CT:
<
p>
thanks for linking to this!
… which as far as I can tell, wouldn’t change the actual effect of the law one iota.
<
p>Whatevs. If he needs a fig leaf, give him the fig leaf.
… for the law itself. Couldn’t this mute political challenges? For me it’s actually a talking point about the deficiencies of zealots:
<
p>”Ok, we’ve tried over and over again to explain to you how the law won’t force your church to marry homosexual men to each other much less to farm animals. We’ve gone over and over again how your church will still be protected constitutionally. Apparently, you really can’t be satisfied until we unnecessarily spell it out in runway lights visible from space. And of course, if we don’t do that, you’ll just keep coming back over and over with this nonsense.
<
p>Fine.
<
p>Have it your way. Let the whole world know that you needed it spelled out for you because you refuse to be legally literate, lest you discover the truth about many of your claims. While we’re at it, spelling out every last thing to mitigate your sense of perpetual prosecution, next year we’ll be sure to edit the Constitution so we can make it clearer exactly how it is that Miss California’s free speech rights had nothing to do with her Q&A debacle, even if we have to enshrine Donald Trump’s name into the document.
<
p>Satisfied?”
Anti-marriage folks flail about, discover some traction from depicting equality as regulation of churches, run with it big time.
<
p>So… add in special “protections” that were never needed in the first place & change the laws.