I grew up in a small town in central N.H., and I remember at my grade school the most popular insult on and off the playground, by a landslide, was "faggot." I can't look at this bill as a sweeping change to the mentalities of many people in the state, but that it has made it so far though the state gov't - albeit narrowly - gives me some hope.
As I understand, the bill is only moving forward because of an amendment made to it:
The amendment distinguished between "civil marriage" and weddings sanctioned by religious groups, spelling out that the state would not force those groups to marry same-sex couples. It also clarified that the bill would not eliminate the option to select "husband" or "wife" when applying for a marriage license, even as it would add the gender-neutral term "spouse."
The Senate version "recognizes the sanctity of religious marriages and the diversity of beliefs in our culture" while also addressing a form of state discrimination, Senate President Sylvia Larsen said in an interview after the vote.
Still sounds pretty discriminatory to me, although if the full privileges and benefits of a hetero marriage are applicable after a service by a Justice of the Peace, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. If someone wanted a religious service they could always call Rev. Gene Robinson <3<3<3. Is this a different standard than in Vermont or Massachusetts or other states?
Any readers living in NH (or not!) I encourage to contact Governor John Lynch, who is a very popular democrat in the state - he has never said he would pass a same-sex marriage bill, but maybe people can help change his mind:
Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121
(603)271-7680 (fax)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gay Marriage bill in N.H. needs help in.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13397
Hello. It is nice to see that this is happening in N.H. I'm confused about why you see the wording of the bill as discriminatory though. If you are willing, could you please elaborate? This is pretty much the approach that my country has taken to same-sex marriage and I am wondering if we have not got it quite right yet?
Godzilla_is_coming,
I had interpreted the amendment as patronizing in that clerical opponents of the bill would be able to consciously not recognize the legality of same-sex marriages. But then again, this isn't (or shouldn't be) a religious issue anyway - so maybe that's not so important. Thanks for challenging my comment :)
What is important to note, as was pointed out by Holly on Feministe, are the other conditions that this bill's passage has brought about against transgender people: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/04/30/new-hampshire/#comments. (Also, see http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10700/nh-senate-passes-marriage-equality-bill-kills-trans-rights-legislation)
This has no effect on anyone recognizing the *legality* of same sex marriages. Its true a religion won't have to recognize the in their church, but they already don't have to recognize any marriage not performed in their church. If I'm catholic and I get married in vegas by an elvis lookalike, its totally legal but the Catholic church probably won't recognize it unless I go through a ceremony there too, and they can refuse to let me do that for many reasons, like for example if the person I'm marrying isn't catholic.
I agree its kind of insulting and stupid, but that isn't the same as discriminatory. Legally, it will have no effect. I just think it was a public relations move, good or bad depending on which side you're on.
I don't see it as discrimatory, either. The clause you object to doesn't say anything about the legal status of civil marriages. It just says this law would not require a church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to. That's how it works with all the other religious constraints on marriage. Divorced people can't get married in the Catholic Church, because it's against the rules of the church. The Catholic Church doesn't try to stop such people from getting married in civil ceremonies (or in other churches), and the secular authorities don't try to make the Catholic Church perform those marriages. Jewish law says a Jew is not supposed to marry a non-Jew, so rabbis don't officiate at mixed marriages. The exceptions do it because individual clergy think it's a good idea, not because there is any legal requirement for them to go against the rules of their religion.
In the current political context, I think it's a good idea to have that clause in the bill. One of the big arguments against same-sex marriage is, "This kind of marriage is against the rules of my religion, and I'm afraid of the government requiring my church to perform it." Some of the activists drumming up that fear are just bigots...but many of the voters who fall for it don't really care what their neighbors do, so long as it doesn't impinge on their comfortable lives. I want those voters on our side, if at all possible.
As I understand it, its not discriminatory at all, just pointless. Any priest of any religion is already allowed to refuse to marry anyone, gay or straight, if they don't think that they follow the rules of that religion, or if they don't know them well enough, or if they don't think they'll have a good relationship, etc etc. A catholic priest doesn't have to marry you even if you say you're catholic. And, in fact, a priest from a religion that is ok with gay marriage can already perform a marriage for a gay couple if they want to. It just doesn't translate to the civil rights of marriage sanctioned by the state.
So basically that language in the bill changes nothing at all. It would already have been like that.
The only bad thing about it is its going to give people the impression that it did something, so it lends more credence to the idea that if they hadn't put this in, priests would be forced to marry gay couples.
People in the US often don't seem to understand that civil marriage and religious marriage are separate things. As a convenience, the priest is allowed to file the paperwork for a civil marriage so you don't have to do it separately. This has confused a lot of people into thinking the priest is in charge of the civil marriage. I think maybe we should go back to making people do two sets of paperwork (or only one if they only care about one or the other aspect) so they realize they are separate things.
As I understand it, its not discriminatory at all, just pointless. Any priest of any religion is already allowed to refuse to marry anyone, gay or straight, if they don't think that they follow the rules of that religion, or if they don't know them well enough, or if they don't think they'll have a good relationship, etc etc. A catholic priest doesn't have to marry you even if you say you're catholic. And, in fact, a priest from a religion that is ok with gay marriage can already perform a marriage for a gay couple if they want to. It just doesn't translate to the civil rights of marriage sanctioned by the state.
So basically that language in the bill changes nothing at all. It would already have been like that.
The only bad thing about it is its going to give people the impression that it did something, so it lends more credence to the idea that if they hadn't put this in, priests would be forced to marry gay couples.
People in the US often don't seem to understand that civil marriage and religious marriage are separate things. As a convenience, the priest is allowed to file the paperwork for a civil marriage so you don't have to do it separately. This has confused a lot of people into thinking the priest is in charge of the civil marriage. I think maybe we should go back to making people do two sets of paperwork (or only one if they only care about one or the other aspect) so they realize they are separate things.
I was thinking about this and wanted to add that basically we as a society have given religions free reign to disicriminate in ways that would never be allowed in other professions. Many religions have core values built around discriminating against anyone who's not in their religion, or doesn't follow their rules. They also often discriminate against groups like women. We have put them in a separate category because the people involved in them feel so strongly that these things are important.
My opinion on this is: fine, whatever, let them discriminate, but they shouldn't have special tax exempt status if they aren't fair to everyone.
This isn't discriminatory. It's separation of church and state.
It might have been nice if they could have included language like "... even though they wouldn't have been required to anyway, we just want to make it clear." Maybe you can't put that stuff in a law, but as far as I can tell, the only problem with this is that it reinforces the idea that if they hadn't put it in, it would impinge on churches.
To me it just reads like peace-keeping (albeit pointless) rhetoric to keep everyone happy. Churches can already pretty much do whatever they want regarding marriage, including not recognize it if they don't want to. It seems to be trying to nip the "but if gay marriage is legal then I have to like it and my church will explooooooooooode" idiots in the bud.
It would be nice if it didn't have to be in there, but if the people it's aimed at thought hard enough to already know that, they probably wouldn't be so stupidly homophobic anyway.