Evidently at issue was language the (Democratic) governor inserted in order to strengthen protections of private institutions to refuse to perform marriages. The language pushed enough Democratic reps into voting "no" without attracting enough Republican support.
There's also a SSM bill in NY, pushed for by Gov. Paterson (back before his popularity tanked) that also looks somewhat unlikely to pass. In this case, the issue doesn't seem to be a concern over private party protections, but a rejection by the Democratic-controlled Senate of extending marriage to include same-sex couples at all.
Finally, here's another conservative arguing for the idea of "unbundling" marriage from domestic partnerships, allowing the government to appropriately incentivize society-stabilizing partnerships without being the arbiter of the social acceptability of particular sexual relationships.
posted
I think it's understandable that they'd want something explicit. In a society as litigious as ours, I can see someone suing a church that refuses to perform a SSM. An explicit statement would prevent that and would put a lot of people at ease.
Vaillancourt has a point, though. This is the language he objected to:
quote:4 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.
This doesn't say that a church can't be forced to perform a SSM. It says that even a secular justice of the peace can discriminate. If it was limited to religious institutions, I bet it would have passed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, doesn't that amendment essentially undermine the entire point of the bill, which is that civil discrimination against gays should not be permitted?
It's like: "racism will not be tolerated, except from racists!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Orin. The state itself would recognize gay marriage and there would likely be plenty of people to perform the marriages. I would expect they would be very busy.
However, the way that's worded it could also protect officials from presiding over *any* marriage they disapproved of. Including interracial marriages.
It would have been better if it just protected clergy, as Lisa said.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NH House voted to approve a new bill, this one with strengthened institutional guarantees, but no "right of conscience" style amendment. It's likely that Gov. Lynch will sign the bill later today.
Also, according to Daily Kos, Sen. Thomas Duane is claiming he has the votes to push the SSM bill through the NY Senate where it has been stalled.
It was a brief respite from Samp's homomentum, but all good things...
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DC isn't a state. But they DO recognize marriages performed in other states, so, at least in that way, they're better than a lot of states.
In any event, we need 13 *actual* states and then we can repeal the DOMA. If it gets repealed before that, the 'phobes can force an amendment through.
And once the DOMA is gone, it doesn't matter which states allow SSM so long as ONE does. You might have to travel across the country, (or to Canada) but you can get married.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all very nice, but it won't have any major effect on me until Illinois gets there.
Pix, what makes you think that just because 13 states have SSM, DOMA will be gone? That has to be repealed by an act of Congress.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: I know it will require an act of congress. Thing is though, if we repeal before we have 13 states, it might inspire the activists on the other side to actually pass the FMA.
If we have 13 states (assuming, you know, that means we have 13 state legislatures) then the FMA is dead in the water no matter how active the anti-gay activists get.
If the DOMA gets repealed, you and your hunny can take a weekend drive to Iowa, then full-faith-n-credit-clause your way back to Ill.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more states individually provide a right like SSM denied by other states, the more pressure there is on the federal level, be it legislative or judicial, to equalize rights on a national level.
posted
...and, let us not forget economic pressures that also press equality.
For example, the US State Department under Hillary has arguably stepped on DOMA by granting some spousal benefits for same sex partners. Part of the reasoning for such extension of equal benefits is the attempt to remain competitive and attract top-notch employees. A large portion of fortune 500 companies offer same-sex partner benefits.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Only 49 to go!
