In a previous post I said the New Hampshire legislature had passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and it was just waiting for the governor’s uncertain signature to be signed into law. As it turns out, the CNN article from which I obtained my information was misleading. The bill had not passed both houses. It had only passed the NH House (March 26). The Senate had not yet approved it. They just did so yesterday, 14-10 (May 20). Apparently, however, they changed some of the provisions in the bill, necessitating a new vote in the House. Within hours, the House voted to reject the bill (188-186), so it is not yet on its way to the governor.
This may sound like good news, but it’s not. The reason the House rejected the Senate version of the bill is disconcerting. The governor stated he would not sign the bill unless there was a strong provision protecting the rights of religious groups to decline participation in same-sex marriage ceremonies. The Senate added such a provision, and that is why it was rejected by the House! Pro-same-sex marriage Democrats jointed Republicans in opposing the bill because of this provision. In doing so, they have made it clear to anyone who is listening that they do not want to allow religious people the right to decline to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. They want to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies under the threat of law, in violation of their religious beliefs!
This is a clear violation of our first amendment rights. Those of us who have been arguing against same-sex marriage have been saying all along that one of the effects of such legislation would be an infringement on religious liberty. Many thought our argument was unfounded alarmism. And yet here we are, already seeing elected leaders expressing their intent to deny religious believers the right to decline participation in same-sex marriage ceremonies. We weren’t just crying wolf. We saw the wolf making his way to the chicken coup. And how he is here.
These people, who promote same-sex marriage in the name of tolerance, don’t know how to exercise tolerance themselves. Not only do they want to force same-sex marriage on an unsupportive populace, but they also want to force religious institutions to participate in ceremonies that are prohibited by their religious beliefs. While most opponents of same-sex marriage are highly tolerant of the right of homosexuals to live as they choose in the privacy of their own home, homosexual advocates rarely exercise such tolerance in return. Their desire and goal is to suppress all opposition – the first amendment and democratic process be damned.
HT: Stand to Reason
Update: In the opening paragraph there is an error. Indeed, the Senate had approved the bill with a religious liberties amendment on 4/29. Because they amended the House version, it had to go back to the House for re-approval. The House passed it on 5/6 and sent it to the governor. The governor, however, sent it back saying he would not sign it unless the religious liberties amendment was strengthened. The Senate did so on 5/20, but the House would not approve the additional language. See the comments section of this post for more information.
Thinking to Believe 
May 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The bill passed both houses of the New Hampshire legislature. I’m not sure why but it wasn’t immediately given to the governor to sign or veto or pass into law within ten days; instead, it somehow sat in the legislature, thereby preventing the governor from having to take the heat for vetoing it.
The governor suggested changes to protect religious liberty (ie, priests won’t have to officiate over gay marriages), which had widespread support and appeared certain to pass. But now the amended version was rejected by the House.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_gay_marriage_new_hampshire
LikeLike
May 21, 2009 at 8:26 pm
MarriageNewsNow.com ran a decent article on this, though you said it even more strongly.
“Why Gay Marriage Matters”
http://tiny.cc/lnBTe
LikeLike
May 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Arthur,
Thanks for the info. It looks like I should have researched this a little more prior to my update, as there is more to the story than met my eye from the news story. Indeed, the Senate passed the bill on 4/29, but the bill they passed added an amendment distinguishing between civil and religious marriage to offer legal protections for religious groups. Because this amendment was absent from the approved House version of the bill, it had to go back to the House for reconsideration. The House passed the amended bill on 5/6. I’m having a hard time tracking down the iterations of the bill, but the legal protections it offered appear to be as follows:
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.
According to the Washington Times, it did go to the governor for his signature on 5/6, but he sent it back, saying he would not sign it unless additional provisions were provided to strengthen the previous religious protections amendment approved on 4/29 by the Senate, and 5/6 by the House. In fact, it appears that the governor is responsible for crafting the added language. What follows appears to be the language the Senate added to the text quoted above (in a separate bill, HB73):
1 New Paragraphs; Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Amend RSA 457:37 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraphs:
III. 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 his or her 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.
IV. 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 United States Constitution and part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.
This addition appears to be what the House objected to, causing them to reject the bill.
Jason
LikeLike
May 23, 2009 at 6:44 am
Interesting.
The governor should not be able to “send back” bills to the legislature. He should have ten days to sign or veto the law. If he does neither, it automatically becomes law, just like in the federal system. They must have found a loophole to do this.
LikeLike