|
||||||
|
|
|
Governor Lynch's Statement on Same-Sex Marriage Bill
By NHPR Staff on Thursday, May 14, 2009.
Governor Lynch's full statement on same-sex marriage. "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. "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." Attached 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. comments
All comments are moderated before appearing on the site. Comments must adhere to the NHPR.org comment guidelines and terms of use. |
Support FromHighlights |
It is always hard to understand where our Governor stands on any issue. Here is another. What I understand he is saying is while cities and towns may not discriminate so called “religious organizations” may continue to exclude certain people of New Hampshire their basic human rights. Remember these are the same organizations that pay no taxes in our cash strapped state. What we really need in New Hampshire is a democratic Governor. Mr. Lynch passes himself off as a democrat but his acts and deeds are consistently those of a conservative republican.
I disagree with the poster who feels Lynch is not acting in a democratic way. I feel he has embodied the spirit of both issues--being sure that churches will not be imposed upon if they do not want to perform same-sex marriages while recognizing the needs of same-sex couples to not be discriminated against on account of religious views they may not hold.
I don't see where the harm is in allowing churches to be exempt from performing same-sex marriages, as I doubt that such couples want to celebrate their love in venues that condemn them anyway.
Fortunately, citizens of New Hampshire still enjoy the basic human rights as outlined in our Bill of Rights, among them the free exercise of religion and the right of conscience. To force private clubs like churches and moose lodges to give up their bigotry is not a power of the State, nor should it be.
While we're at it, let's just do away with the whole idea of the State needing to give permission to any two people to get married. There just aren't any reasons left to support the cost and bureaucracy of such an antiquated concept. We don't have any epidemics of first-cousins marrying or rampant disease anymore, and it's because of education, not regulation. It's time to move on.
His language seems reasonable enough on the face of it (in fact, it seems superfluous; I think religious organizations already enjoy these protections). My only concern would be in the case of a public accommodation or private business (like a hotel or restaurant) owned by a religious organization -- would they be allowed to turn away a same sex couple? I'm sure lawyers will go over it. But my first reaction is, fine, add the language.
why can't they just get married. The church doesn't care if Jewish people get married. They have no say in that. Two Arabs can get married tomorrow without anyone saying a word, but two people of the same sex want to get married and all of a sudden the catholic church can say that it's not ok? Why don't the step in and say something about Jews? Jews don't get married in the eyes of the God catholic people believe in. I am disgusted with how closed minded we are as a people!
If you think the Catholic church is the only religious organization against same-sex marriage you need to get out more. Every one of the larger religions (just about all christian, Jewish, Muslim) have official stances against this.
You are correct, Jews don't get married in the eyes of the Catholic church. And often times such unions are not considered holy unions by the Catholic church.
This new language is outrages, if you read it carefully you will see that it allows anyone who gay marriage is against their beliefs discriminate towards this minority group. For example if a couple want to rent a place to celebrate their marriage the owner can refuse to give them service because it is against his or her religion and above all the gay couple cannot bring about any lawsuit towards this discrimination. The governor is trying to make everyone happy by comprmising...we'll I am sorry but you can not give someone half a equality, you cannot compromise someone's rights while giving that same right to the majority...
Wrong. Allows Freedoms. The language allows religious institutions and orgs operated by religious institutions to deny services usually provided due to the marriage - NOT BUSINESSES based on personal preference or personal religion & not against an individual due to the fact they are gay - This would more often happen if a church hall was requested for a ceremony or assistance was requested from the church for living expenses otherwise provided only to married couples. As a same-sex wife, I am OK with this change, as I see it as freedom to practice religion.
I believe that the above post misreads the proposed language: that language does not allow just anyone to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. It allows only those who are "managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society" to discriminate on the basis of the religious beliefs of the supervising religious organization. I think this is simply intended to make it impossible to sue a Catholic church, for instance, or the Knights of Columbus (a church association) for refusing to allow their facilities to be used for marriages the church disapproves of.
Part I looks pretty innocuous; part II could be dangerous, specifically the part about denying insurance benefits to same-sex spouses. I'm not sure what the rules are for religious organizations in hiring - are they allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? - but if they do hire a married gay person they should have to provide the same insurance coverage they would for a married straight person. Religious beliefs shouldn't allow discrimination in the administration of employee benefits programs.