New Hampshire Gov. To Sign Gay Marriage Bill With Protection For Churches

CONCORD, N.H. — Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage as soon as the Legislature makes some changes, which legislative leaders immediately said they would back.

Lynch asked that the already-approved legislation be revised to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays. Gay marriage supporters said they do not object.

"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded," Lynch told reporters. "New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections."

Lynch said he personally opposes gay marriage, but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."

A gay marriage bill and companion legislation were adopted last week, but had yet to make it the governor's desk. Now, they will be held until the changes proposed by Lynch are approved, said Senate President Sylvia Larsen.

Larsen and House Speaker Terie Norelli predicted the Legislature would act quickly to adopt the changes, perhaps as early as next week.

"I want to thank the governor for his leadership in finding a way that our state can move forward to enact marriage equality and, at the same time, respect religious tolerance," said Norelli, D-Portsmouth.

The bill's main sponsor, state Rep. Jim Splaine, said the bottom line is that Lynch supports marriage equality for gays.

Story continues below

advertisement

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, a group supporting gay marriage, approved of Lynch's proposed changes.

"This is language we can support," she said.

Four other New England states _ Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont _ recognize same-sex marriage. Iowa is the other state to legalize gay marriage.

Lynch said he wanted the law modeled on Connecticut's, which he said contains better protections than the proposal adopted by the New Hampshire Legislature. For example, Lynch wants to be sure an organist employed by a church opposed to gay marriage could legally refuse to perform at a gay wedding.

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized Lynch, a Democrat, for his position.

"Once again, Gov. Lynch has discovered a way to be against something and for it at the same time," Sununu said.

Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research, said Lynch's proposed changes are a disingenuous attempt to obscure the fact Lynch misled the public into believing he opposed same-sex marriage.

Comments

[grey sells]

The Churches do not need special protection regarding gay marriage. Churches right now enjoy the special protections separating Church and State under the US Constitution; namely, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... " This provision would apply to NH.

[yakaloot]

This is ridiculous to think any gay marriage is going to be bad for any straight marriage. How stupid. Someone once said You don't have to be a conservative to be stupid but stupid people often are conservatives. Go look in the mirror now!

[RalphNYC]

I say that we should embrace the silly language changes proposed by the Gov. Lynch. But lets be clear this is a 2 way street. If the language allows a person not to perform a marriage because they feel that the marriage in question is immoral, a Unitarian Universalist minister may feel that a straight wedding is immoral as long as same sex marriages are 2nd class. A florist, a caterer, a hairdresser a florist or even the owner of a quaint bed and breakfast could all make the same moral decision.

If we all embrace this crazy law and take ownership of our claim to morality, what would happen to all those opposite sex couples? They would see what it feels like to be a second class citizen. Then just maybe truly moral minds would realize the immorality of this "moral" stance by Gov. Lynch and others like him.

[indywoman]

Churches are so weak. We don't want to be forced to marry people we don't like...boo hoo. I'm am sure that plenty of churches have married morally bankrupt people who end up cheating on or stealing from their spouses. Or maybe even murdering a spouse. But, lets not focus on any churches downfalls, or outright crimes (sexual predatory priests and the churches practice of moving them around so that more children could be raped, and then covering up the rapes themselves that went on for hundreds of years).

Just don't make us marry gay people!!! God forbid!! Everyone knows that Jesus taught people to hate other people (or could it be just the opposite?). Organized religion is a greedy corporate structure formed to brainwash people en masse and take their money. Ugh.

[publius1]

Damn, gay people can get married in these states. Well, I guess my marriage is over because gay people have crammed will cram their marriage down my neck, my relationship with my wife is no longer sacred and I will be forced to live in a gay fog.

Is that about right anti-gay people? If you think your marriage is in any way weakened by allowing gay people to have the SAME rights you. Also, I am in a mixed race marriage, which used to be illegal in many states.

This issue is about equal protection. About allowing gay spouses to have health benefits and visitation rights. If your church doesn't want to marry gay people. Fine! You can bash gay people all you like. Would it be OK if I said, "ugly people can no longer get married?"

[CindyV]

It's interesting that the states are taking the lead on the gay marriage issue. What's even more interesting is what's coming out of the White House on this topic---(sound of crickets chirping). You'd think the salf-proclaimed "fierce advocate" for gay rights would have something to say.

[PlaceboStudman]

I'm really torn on this one, to be honest....on the one hand, yes, President Obama does need to speak out and clarify his position on this and at least make a statement, even if it is vague and full of political jargon. On the other hand, I can't help but go back to something he said awhile back about "if you want me to do it, make me do it", so maybe he really is letting this be a state issue and when 26 states legalize marriage equality, then he will come out and make the necessary federal changes to make sure the other states don't have the federal government to scapegoat for not allowing marriage equality

Just a thought, in no way do I claim to know anything for sure

[antaeus]

Even progressive legal scholars look back at Roe v. Wade and consider whether that Supreme Court decision short-circuited a grassroots process, which had already been seeing states move to legalize abortion. Some believe that the SC move served to energize reactionary opposition that might not have coalesced as vigorously had the states been allowed to continue on their paths.

I understand that, now given the states' own movement on marriage equality, it doesn't necessarily help the movement to have the president use the pulpit at this time. I don't say he has indefinite leave to avoid the issue, but I also think it makes sense this month, and maybe this year, for him to watch the states and see what happens.

[NWBrunette]

You're right. The so-called "fierce advocate" has all the ferocity of a napping gnat.

[indywoman]

Then again, he did get elected President of The United States!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!

I think he is crazy like a fox. He knows that to be elected, you simply can not tell the truth of all of your positions. Nor should you, because it takes one stupid mistake to lose a nomination...(I'm thinking of Deans crazy laugh ending his bid for President...)

Our country is a sound byte society and Obama is very wise with what he says. Some issues have to be forced by the states to become legal because that is how the people make it happen for themselves. One candidate should not have to have the burden, and therefore ending a run for President over one issue. I think we want a President who is smart enough to know that, and we do.

[StevenKeirstead]

It's reassuring that New Hampshire will join Massachusetts and Maine in marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am glad that when my husband and I drive from Boston to vacation in Downeast Maine, we will be safe from discrimination. I have worried what would happen if we got into an accident outside Massachusetts, and one of us was hurt. Would the hospital or ambulance driver treat the other guy as a stranger, would they disregard our marriage and our health care proxy documents? Soon that will be one less thing to be concerned about.

[frantaylor]

Those of you congratulating New Hampshire on being so progressive should go check out the opinion blogs on New Hampshire's big newspapers: the Concord Monitor, the Manchester Union Leader, and the Nashua Telegraph. They are calling for Lynch's head.

[rmax53]

...a vocal minority. The same people screamed against civil unions, and look where it got Gov Lynch: re-elected.

As for letting people vote on civil rights, it's always a good idea to let the majority dictate the civil rights of a minority, isn't it?

[nico89]

I live in NH and the papers are not calling for his head.

[grey sells]

Print newspapers are not really that relevant or influencial these days.

[ThankGodhesgone]

Why is it that the only arguments against same sex marriage are on religious grounds.

During the sixties and early seventies, interracial marriage was banned in some states on relgious grounds.

When is this Nation that supposedly stands for all men are created equal, going to throw out the religious bigotry that tries to deny certain segments of society of their GOD given rights?

[Sepulchre]

The primary problem they have with same sex marriage is fear. Let me explain, their fear isn't bound in fear of homosexuals, that is a misdirection. Their fear comes from the fact that if they and their religious leaders are wrong about homosexuality being evil, what else are they wrong about? There fear comes from the possibility they may actually have to examine their beliefs, think about them, and possibly find them lacking (the greatest fear of a fundamentalist). The easy path is always to do what others tell you (basis of most religions), actual self reflection requires a level of thought that makes most of them scared, and a few will never be able to manage. They are not afraid of homosexuals, they are afraid of themselves, and they are lazy.

You can be religious and/or have faith and still think, but that requires work.

[MarkBoston]

wow .. I think you hit the nail on the head here .. Bravo !!

[StevenKeirstead]

That is a very interesting way of thinking about the religious discriminators mindsets. Regarding many such people, I am sure that you are right. They don't like things that undermine part of their world view out of fear that their entire world view may crumble. They may not be afraid of thinking for themselves per se, but they are afraid of losing their faith in what they have been led to believe is divine justice.

[rmax53]

It's the fear of losing power. Look back at any majority objection to extending rights to a minority.

[NoOneSpecial]

Agreed.

I'd also add that many people also feel safety in numbers when it comes to their religious beliefs. It's not just that self-reflection and examination scares them, but that if they found their opinions changed they'd be terrified of their faith community ostracizing them.

In a different context, think about a clique of popular girls who are cruel to a less popular girl who has never done anything to them. There's usually some leaders in the group that instigate the cruelty, and even if the other girls would never act that way on their own, they join in without raising an objection because to do so they would be ejected from the group and no longer "popular".

Different types of a community, but the same social dynamic at work.

[nola87]

I think they're also scared that if the government legalizes same sex marriage, and pastors start to preform them, they'll be asked to questions other elements of their religion, it'll open a can of worms. Some people will never be won over to accept gay marriage. Hell, it's been over forty years and some people can't get over black people being allowed to move into their neighborhoods.

[BeltwayInsider]

It's rather surprising to find conservatives railing against Marriage Equality rather than rallying behind it, because Marriage Equality will have a far greater impact on the Gay Community than it could possibly ever have on the community at large. This is because the Gay Community is a relatively small minority community. If we do the math, so to speak, you'll see exactly what I mean.

Under Marriage Equality, there would probably be only about one in a hundred marriages that would be comprised of same sex couples; certainly no more than, say, three in a hundred. However, from the perspective of the Gay Community, that would represent something like perhaps one in ten gay individuals, or more, that would be married. This represents a sizable part of the community, especially in comparison to the number of same sex marriages within the larger community.

And, specifically, what impact would these marriages have in the Gay Community? I can't help but believe that it would do anything other than to bring conservative values into the Gay Community.

If anything is to be "destroyed" by Marriage Equality, it would hardly be Marriage itself. It would more likely be the sexual liberation ushered into the Gay Community in the 1970's. And if you are either a gay man who was sexually active during this period, or if you have ever seen the revealing documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s", you know of exactly what I am speaking...

[macchugsid]

Oh My God! Compromise! What is the country coming to. It must be the end of times! What sort of Blasphemy is this.
No really, is this not what should be happening nationwide. The reason we as a nation are in the shape we are is that there has been no compromise for years now.

Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now

[frantaylor]

Between Netanyahu and Sununu, MIT's politicians are not looking very intelligent today.

[Martha12]

Here we come, walkin'
Down the street.
We get the funniest looks from
Ev'ry one we meet.
Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around.
But we're too busy getting married
To put anybody down.

We go wherever we want to,
do what we like to do
We don't have time to get restless,
There's always something new.
Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around.
But we're too busy getting married
To put anybody down.

We're just tryin' to be friendly,
Come and watch us sing and play,
We're the young gneration,
And we've got something to say.

Any time, Or anywhere,
Just look over your shoulder
Guess who'll be standing there

Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around.
But we're too busy getting married
To put anybody down.

Hey, hey, we're the Monkees,
You never know where we'll be found.
so you'd better get ready,
We may be comin' to your town.

[mollymac]

What is this about?

[proggirl]

I think it's about three minutes. It's certainly got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Katzencats]

"New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized Lynch, a Democrat, for his position:
'Once again, Gov. Lynch has discovered a way to be against something and for it at the same time,' Sununu said."

------------------

This is the problem with the Reps/Cons, they don't uderstand compromise OR shades of grey. Gov. Lynch never said he was "for" gay marriage, he said he was against it, but understands it's what his constituents/the citizens of his state want. I guess doing what the voters want you to do is an alien concept to them. As is the concept that others may not think the same as them and son't want to live their lives as the Reps/Cons want them to.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp, once you open your mind (I promise it won't fly away!).

[Katzencats]

Pardon the typos above, the cats think my fingers are prey.

[proggirl]

think?

[Koreboomer]

For those of you not from New England, New Hampshire was for a long time a Conservative Republican bastion. It's still fiscally conservative (no sales or income taxes) and very white, but it now has only one Republican in Washington and the SSM bill shows how much has changed there.

[frantaylor]

Are you kidding? I live in New Hampshire. We continue to be the only state without a seat belt law. We have the worst school system in the country.

Every highway overpass has netting or wooden boards to keep us from being killed by deteriorating bits of concrete because we are too cheap to fix our highways.

We turned down 90% funding for a commuter train because we were too cheap to cough up 10%.

Most of New Hampshire works in Massachusetts, there are no jobs here.

New Hampshire is NOT a progressive state.

[gloriousbeing]

Um, didn't see where Koreboomer said it WAS a progressive state....just that things have changed.