New Hampshire became the sixth state to [neuter] marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes [neutering] marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.This seems like a cop-out to me. I get there are some things elected representatives do something because it is what the people want even if it isn't what the representative wants to do, but we're not talking what to name a highway. Has he detailed why he "personally opposes" it?
The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.It will be interesting to see if those parts of the law withstand court assault.It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
Same-sex couples already in civil unions will automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage."What if they'd rather not have a "marriage" but rather a civil union? Now that choice has been taken away from them? And yes, I do know of a same-sex couple that does not want marriage.
So what's the score now? 6 to 30?
The article was not as clear as it should have been with regards to civil union. Starting January 1, 2010 a couple that was in a civil union has essentially four options prior to January 1, 2011. The couple may apply for a marriage license and have their marriage solemnized. The couple may just write to the town clerk where their civil union was recorded and have it recorded instead as a marriage. The couple may get their civil union dissolved. Finally the couple can do nothing and effective January 1, 2011 their civil union will be merged into a marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the couple would rather not be married? Tough luck. Opposite sex couples can't choose civil union either. I wouldn't say that a choice has been taken away, though. Those couples don't currently have the choice of marriage. So the choice has been changed from civil union or nothing to marriage or nothing. The same choice opposite sex couples have always had in New Hampshire.
Thanks for the additional information, but the overall gist remains the same. They are being kicked out of civil unions, to quote a certain mayor, "whether they like it or not."
ReplyDelete"What if the couple would rather not be married? Tough luck. Opposite sex couples can't choose civil union either."
Yes, but for years have been told how vitally important and necessary civil unions were, so they needed to be created by law. So I guess they aren't all that important?
It smacks of the same sort of tactics as insisting that licensed marriage is a fundamental right for pairings, but when the voters say "no" to changing the basic terms of that licensing, turning around and calling for the abolition of all marriage licenses.
It's moving the goal post... bait and switch. The story keeps changng.
Kind of like saying "All we want is to be left alone... all we want is privacy... all we want is for you to stay out of our bedroom..." and then turning around and demanding PUBLIC affirmation.
ReplyDeleteWhich is it?
Yes, but for years have been told how vitally important and necessary civil unions were, so they needed to be created by law. So I guess they aren't all that important?
ReplyDeleteThat makes no sense. Most people who support the right of same-sex couples to marry believe that domestic partnerships with some limited legal recognition are better than no legal recognition. Civil unions which get treated the same as marriage under state law, however, are even better than that. Finally the ability to get married is better than the ability to get a civil union. There is no contradiction, moving goal post, or bait and switch there. Civil unions were vitally important because of the legal protections they provided. Marriage provides all of the same protections and more. That doesn't mean civil unions weren't a great improvement. Of course, somebody could also find each of these acts to be progressively worse. They might believe that allowing civil unions is bad, but allowing same-sex couples to marry is even worse. Nothing inconsistent there either.
The only sort of bait and switch came from those who claimed that civil unions were no different than marriage, and who then vehemently opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.
"The only sort of bait and switch came from those who claimed that civil unions were no different than marriage, and who then vehemently opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry."
ReplyDeleteWell said. Another example of bait-and-switch was the result of the Common Ground Initiative in Utah, built on the declaration by the LDS church that they did not object to rights and benefits for same-sex couples (they claimed to object only to same-sex marriage). Naturally, the proposed bills died, without any support from the LDS church, thanks in no small part to members of the church.
Here in Massachusetts people tried to stave off same sex marriage by saying civil unions were the viable option, yet the same people then went to Oregon and told them Domestic Partnerships were the same as marriage and should be fought against. Strange how the story changes depending on who is listening.
ReplyDelete"all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage."
ReplyDeleteIsn't this already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment?
Perhaps the language was meant to forestall unconstitutional legislation.
However, religious freedom protections are largely fig leaves. Religious charities will be harassed for, say, not placing orphans with homosexual couples. Religious individuals will not enjoy the protections of religious organizations.
But actual worship will be left untouched, and highlighted as an example of the activists' magnanimity.
"Here in Massachusetts people tried to stave off same sex marriage by saying civil unions were the viable option, yet the same people then went to Oregon and told them Domestic Partnerships were the same as marriage and should be fought against. Strange how the story changes depending on who is listening."
ReplyDeleteI disagree that DPs are the same as marriage, and they shouldn't be. They should be for a different kind of voluntary association than a marriage is.
But perhaps they turned against DPs because it became apparent that they were being used as Trojan horses to get judges to strike down marriage?
But perhaps they turned against DPs because it became apparent that they were being used as Trojan horses to get judges to strike down marriage?
ReplyDeleteNo. That can't be it. Oregon already had a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. It is possible, though, that they feared it would lead to marriage because the people would see that granting protection to homosexual relationships was not all that problematic and then decide that it wouldn't be a problem to take it one step further and allow marriage. We've seen this happen in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. It looks like New Jersey may be headed that way as well.
"But perhaps they turned against DPs because it became apparent that they were being used as Trojan horses to get judges to strike down marriage?"
ReplyDeleteI've seen this point argued before. It seems hard to tell if the intention was bait and switch or it is simply the evolutionary step in the equality process. Do you have any evidence to back a Trojan Horse claim that can be verified by a credible third party?
It is unjust to merge nonmarriage with marital status under any name.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that for SSM supporters the emphasis has always been on same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior, but that is not a legal requirement anyplace that has enacted or imposed SSM (under whatever localized name).
Unlike marriage, SSM is a nonsexual type of relationship, at law.
Call it civil union or something else, what is the societal signficance of a nonsexual type of arrangement such that it provides the extraordinary reason to flatten marital status?
DP was used by the trial judge and by the CA high court as a fig leaf to denounce the man-woman basis of marital status as unconstitutional. The DP merger with marital status was done against the meaning of the marriage statute as approved by voters in 2000; and it also stands against the meaning of the marraige amendment as ratified in 2008. But the recent CA high court dodged this in order to protect its own predrawn conclusions, based on DP.
ReplyDeleteYou can approve of what the trial court and the high court have done, but you can't deny the significance of the localized merger of DP with marital status in the profferred reasoning. This was foreseen by others, as some above have acknowledged.