Thinking to Believe

I must say I am a little shocked at this one given how liberal NY is, but the NY Senate rejected a same-sex marriage (SSM) bill that passed in the NY House.  The voted it down by a vote of 38-24.  

So as of December 2009 five states allow for SSM: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.  California was once on the list when the CA Supreme Court forced the CA legislature to legalize SSM (of course, SSM was already legal in practice, although not in name), but the CA voters amended their constitution in November 2008 to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling.  Maine was also on the list until last month, when the voters of Maine overturned a congressional law that passed in May of this year legalizing SSM.

The NJ Senate is expected to vote on a SSM bill next week, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens there.

I just became aware of another referendum related to same-sex partnerships, this one in Washington State.  In May 2009 Washington’s legislature approved a bill that expanded the rights of domestic partners to include all the same rights as married couples, lacking only the name “marriage.”  Again, this was put to the voters as a referendum, and the citizens said, “Yes.”  The final vote was 51% to 49%. 

I find it interesting that those who supported the referendum to expand domestic partnership rights, raised nearly 1.1 million dollars for their efforts.  Those who opposed the referendum, however, only raised $60,000.  And yet still, the vote was within 2% points.

Once again, when the question of same-sex marriage is put to the voters, the voters say “No” (the 31^st time).  Last spring, Maine’s legislature passed a law making same-sex marriage legal in that state.  The law was stayed, however, until the people had a chance to vote on it yesterday.  And they said no, but not by much (53%).

It appears the NH House finally agreed to at least some of the religious protections Governor John Lynch demanded.  The governor signed the bill into law last Wednesday.  It will not take effect until January 1, 2010. 

If anyone knows the precise differences between the bill that was just passed by the House, and the bill that was rejected by them a couple of weeks ago, please note them in the comments section.  I am interested to see what they gave and what they took.

Michael Medved makes a compelling argument that the existing “religious protections” being written into same-sex marriage laws – that provide legal protection for religious groups who object to same-sex marriage – are a house of cards just waiting to be toppled: 

The drive for same sex marriage stalled in New Hampshire over insistence by Governor John Lynch that the legislation must include strong protections for religious institutions and individuals who oppose such unions. This tactic – now adopted by gay marriage advocates across the country – may provide office holders with political cover but will offer very little legal security for defenders of traditional marriage. Legislative “conscience” provisions won’t survive lawsuits by agitators or judgments by activist jurists. If gay marriage is a fundamental human and constitutional “right,” then how could faith-based groups or religious individuals legally discriminate against the exercise of that right? If a florist declines to provide services to a same sex wedding, or a religious club refuses to rent its facility for a gay nuptial, there will be immediate and aggressive legal action to guarantee “equal protection of the laws.” If laws (like the provisions endorsed by Governor Lynch) authorize discrimination against same sex couples, it’s easy to envision judicial decisions invalidating them as unconstitutional. It’s now a well-established point of law that theological doctrine can’t protect institutions or individuals if they discriminate on the basis of race. … If gay identity is equivalent to racial identity (a key contention of the gay marriage movement), logic requires that unequal treatment based on sexual orientation should receive no more sanction than unequal treatment based on race.

I think Medved is right.  Including such religious protections is just a way of pacifying religious conservatives.  Once same-sex marriage has been entrenched in the law, however, any opposition to it will be litigated against.  Indeed, this is the pattern of the pro-homosexual lobby.  In the beginning, they lobbied for civil unions.  Then they lobbied for civil unions to have the same rights and obligations as marriage.  But they were not content with that.  In addition to having all the same rights as married couples, they wanted their relationship to be designated by an equal name: marriage.  They said that anything less than full equality in every respect is discrimination.  And the courts have bought it every step of the way.  So why wouldn’t they also buy the argument that allowing religious groups to decline participation in same-sex marriage ceremonies is an example of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, comparable to discriminating on the basis of race?  They can, and mark my words…they will.  “How will same-sex marriage affect you?” people say.  It will eventually prevent us from opposing it in deed, and possibly speech.  That’s how.

Yesterday, in a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only.  This is the same court that forced same-sex marriage on California last year, when they overturned a 2000 law defining marriage as between a man and woman only, as being unconstitutional.  Now that the voters amended the Constitution to define marriage in such a fashion, what could they do?  It’s difficult to say the Constitution is unconstitutional!

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.

This one completely escaped my attention.  Last week (5/6/09) Maine and New Hampshire’s legislative bodies approved bills legalizing same sex marriage.  Maine’s governor, John Baldacci, immediately signed the bill into law, making Maine the fifth state to legalize same sex marriage (the second to do so democratically).  If New Hampshire’s governor signs the legislation, New Hampshire will become the sixth. 

New England has quickly become the same-sex marriage capital of the United States.  As much as it pains me to say it, given the trends in public opinion toward the support of same-sex marriage, and given the recent spate of victories for this cause, I have little hope that we will be able to stem the tide.  Other states will follow the trend either legislatively or judicially.  We are losing the culture war on this issue, and we can only blame ourselves for not standing up and giving a principled defense for traditional marriage, and against same-sex marriage.  If we hope to hold the fort in the remaining states, we must present our case in the public square in a reasonable, charitable manner.

Update (5/21): While the CNN article I linked to above seemed to indicate that both houses of the New Hampshire legislature had passed the bill, such was not the case.  The Senate passed the bill (14-10) on 5/20, but the same bill failed to pass the House (188-186) just hours later.  So this bill is not awaiting a signature from New Hampshire governor, John Lynch…yet.  The NH Senate and House are working on revising the bill so that it will be acceptable to the House.  A revised bill could pass, and then be sent to the governor.  So long as the bill contains protections for religious groups opposing same-sex marriage, Governor Lynch has indicated he will sign it.

Vermont is first again!  They were the first to enact civil unions in 2000.  Now they are the first state to democratically enact same-sex marriage (rather than having the courts impose it on the people).  The Vermont legislature voted today to legalize same-sex marriage, barely overriding the governor’s veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses.  From the polls I have seen, this reflects the will of the people.  While I am staunchly against legalizing same-sex marriage, at least Vermont went about doing it the right way: democratically.

In 2005 the Iowa state law defining marriage as between a man and woman only was challenged.  A county judge struck the law down in 2007.  On Friday 4/3/09 the Iowa Supreme Court upheld that ruling, making Iowa the third state to sanction same-sex marriage (via the courts).