Box Turtle Bulletin

NH Anti-Gays Admit that “Religious Protections” are Redundant

Opponents of marriage equality only have a few arrows in their quiver. The strongest of these is “infringing on religious freedoms” and they have a handful of anecdotes that can be distorted to appear as though churches are going to lose their rights to speak or believe according to their faith.

Those who favor marriage equality consistently respond that we have no interest in infringing on their rights to religious self-determination nor are we trying to micro-manage their faith. And we point out that we couldn’t do so even if we wanted to; the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the rights of religions.

However, in Connecticut and Vermont – and now proposed in New Hampshire – are reassurances, special provisions included to assure religions and those who practice them that their preachers and houses of worship will not be compelled to conduct ceremonies contrary to their faith. And those favoring marriage equality are not concerned because we know that these protections are already present in the Constitution.

But now that we offer these concessions, anti-gays are still not pleased. Because, as they’ve known all along, the objections which they raised were not truthful to begin with.

Consider the words of Kevin H. Smith, the executive director of anti-gay group Cornerstone Policy Research:

“The folks who [they are] claiming to be protecting in this bill are already protected in the First Amendment by the freedom of religion…”

Anti-gays have known all along that their claims that churches would lose their tax exempt status or preachers would be jailed was nothing but hot air. A convenient lie told to advance a political agenda, but one that they know full well is untrue.

The New New Hampshire Marriage Provision

Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire has released the language that he will require to be added to the marriage bill before his signature will allow New Hampshire to join five other states in providing marriage equality. In my opinion, this strikes a fair balance between providing civil equality and allowing churches their own autonomy.

I. 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 their 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.

II. 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 Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

These changes are expected to be implemented quickly and the first same-sex marriages in New Hampshire will occur in January 2010. (Boston Globe)

“I applaud the governor for keeping an open mind,” Senate president Sylvia Larsen said in an interview last night. “The language that we will be addressing only improves the protections for religious organizations and individuals.”

Representative James Splaine, the primary sponsor of the same-sex marriage legislation, said: “We can find a way to do that in the next week or two, and then we’ll have marriage equality.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Const. Amendment

Per the Wisconsin Radio Network:

The court announced on Thursday it will review a case brought by William McConkey.

The UW-Oskosh political science professor filed a lawsuit challenging the 2006 amendment on the grounds that it was improperly put before voters. McConkey argues the ballot question not only asked voters to ban gay marriage, but also any “similar” legal arrangement such as civil unions. He says the question was unconstitutional because the issues should have been put to voters separately.

Lynch Will Sign Marriage…. IF

The AP is reporting,

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage, but only if it strengthens protections for churches opposed to gay marriage.

He says that the current protections should be beefed up to equal those of Connecticut and Vermont.

The language in HB 436 regarding protections is 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.

There is a follow-up bill, HB 310, which provides as follows:

457:31-b Solemnization of Marriage; Applicability.

I. Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of Jewish Rabbis residing in this state, or of the people called Friends or Quakers, to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid. Jewish Rabbis residing out of the state may obtain a special license as provided by RSA 457:32.

II. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a person authorized to solemnize a marriage in a religious ceremony from solemnizing a marriage in a civil ceremony.

7 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Amend RSA 457:37 to read as follows:

457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage.

I. 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.

II. No 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 be required to participate in a ceremony solemnizing marriage in violation of the religious beliefs of such organization, association, or society.

Taken in combination, the only protections in the Connecticut or Vermont legislation that do not appear to be explicitly stated here is whether such organizations are obligated to provide goods or services (e.g. a hall). I’ve no objection to such a clarification.

UPDATE:

Lynch has proposed his own specific language.

“If the Legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the Legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it,” Lynch said. “We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity. I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the Legislature to pass it.”

I do not yet have the specific proposed language.

UPDATE 2:

From Reuters:

The governor’s suggested changes would make clear that religious groups would not be required to perform gay weddings if their beliefs prohibited it, and that they would not be held liable in court for refusing such services.

The language would also make clear that social groups and other organizations affiliated with religious entities did not have to provide benefits to gay couples.

UPDATE 3:

New York Times says

Legislative leaders indicated they would allow the changes, making it all but certain that New Hampshire will become the sixth state to allow marriage between gay couples.

“New Hampshire\’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections,” Mr. Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. “But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty.”

Analysis of the New York Assembly Vote

The New York State Assembly passed the marriage equality bill 89 to 52. This is reason for celebration. But a closer look suggests that this victory is particularly sweet.

The Assembly voted for a marriage bill in 2007, as well. But in that vote the count was 85 to 61. And while this year’s vote only has four more “yes” votes, the margin of victory increased from 24 to 37.

Elizabeth Benjamin, who writes for the Daily News with the sort of political analysis that I enjoy reading, provides some detail:

Five members who had voted “no” changed their votes – two Republicans: Fred Thiele and Janet Duprey, bringing the total number of GOP “yes” votes to five; two Democrats: Sandy Galef and Bob Reilly; and one Independence Party member, Tim Gordon).

In addition, there were a number of members who were “excused for other reasons” and some seats changed hands. But the net result shows a healthy increase in support, one which suggests that the brand of political calculus engaged in by politicians shows that supporting marriage equality is a safe position.

[Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan] Van Capelle predicted the vote would prove to be the “tipping point” that pushes the Senate to follow the Assembly’s lead and muster the 32 votes necessary to pass the bill this year. (O’Donnell made much the same argument to me before the vote started).

Getting Republicans to vote “yes” and Democrats who had voted “no” to change their minds is what will move the Senate “from good to great,” Van Capelle said, adding: “I know now this is the last time this house will have to vote on this bill.”

Does New Hampshire Now Have Same-Sex Marriage?

Law Dork thinks so. He points to this clause in the New Hampshire constitution:

If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it unless the legislature by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

The Union Leader reports that the bill went to the governor on May 6. Law Dork counted off the days (skipping Sunday) and concludes that if the Union Leader was correct, then the bill became law at midnight last night. That’s if the bill went to the governor on May 6.

Update: It looks like the answer is “not yet.” According to Sunday’s Nashua Telegraph, “The Senate-crafted compromise (HB 436) only got to Secretary of State Bill Gardner late Friday afternoon, while the second bill (HB 310) that fixes mistakes made in the first wasn’t there yet. At a minimum, what must follow are signatures from the Senate president, House speaker and key members on the House and Senate Enrolled Bills committee.” The official web page for the bill suggests that the Senate President may have affixed his signature yesterday, if I’m reading it correctly.

[Hat tip: Pam’s House Blend]

New York Assembly Says Yes To Marriage

This just in:

Members of the Assembly in a bipartisan vote of 89-52, approved a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in New York State. The bill had been introduced by Governor David Paterson earlier this year.

During the spirited debate Member of the Assembly, Janet Duprey, R, Plattsburgh, explained why she was changing her vote from two years ago. “The next generation of adults will wonder what the big deal was about.”

When the Assembly considered the bill in 2007, it passed 85-61, but died in the Senate. This time, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D) has stated that the Senate will consider the bill this session if it is apparent there are enough votes to pass it.

New Hampshire Poll: Residents Evenly Split on Marriage

Per the Boston Herald

A new poll shows New Hampshire residents are evenly split on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Forty-five percent of those polled by Dartmouth College oppose legalizing gay marriage, and 41 percent support it. The difference was within the poll\’s margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Nevada DPs Pass out of House Judiciary

Per the SJ Mercury News

On a party-line vote, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday for a bill to give domestic partners, whether gay or straight, many of the rights and benefits that Nevada offers to married couples.

Republicans were outvoted by Democrats who control the committee as SB283 moved to the full Assembly. If approved there, it must return to the Senate, where it was backed previously, for a review of Assembly amendments. Gov. Jim Gibbons has threatened to veto the plan if it reaches his desk.

Rhode Island Hearing on Marriage

Tomorrow the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on two bills concerning marriage.

Scheduled for a hearing is a bill (2009-H 5744) sponsored by Rep. Arthur Handy (D-Dist. 18, Cranston) to broaden the definition of persons eligible to marry to include persons of the same gender. It also provides that members of the clergy would not be required to officiate at any particular marriage.

Also scheduled is a bill (2009-H 5068) sponsored by Rep. Jon D. Brien (D-Dist. 50, Woonsocket) to submit to the electors a proposition to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a lawful union between one man and one woman.

Neither is likely to be enacted.

Duluth Provides Domestic Partner Registry

Yesterday the Duluth, Minnesota, city council approved a policy to issue domestic partner registration. (Fort Mill Times)

The city of Duluth will soon begin permitting couples to register as domestic partners, which could make it easier for them to get domestic partner benefits.

The ordinance says domestic partners are defined as those who are “as committed to one another as married persons are traditionally committed.”

What’s Holding Up New Hampshire?

Last Wednesday the New Hampshire House approved the revisions made by the Senate to the marriage bill. We all expected this to elicit an immediate response from the Governor.

Then we found that the five day signature window was not from the time in which the legislature approved the bill but from when it reached his desk. And that there were formalities requiring various signatures.

But that was almost a week ago. And we still haven’t heard if the bill is on his desk yet. How are they transmitting this bill to each other for signature, taped to the back of a boxturtle?

Bill O’Reilly Endorses Our Site

Well not really.

But in a debate over marriage equality with Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, Bill found himself drawn to an argument similar to that which led to the selection of the name of this site.

HOOVER: I don’t buy into the slippery slope argument at all.

O’REILLY: You’d let everybody do whatever they want?

HOOVER: That’s the slippery slope argument. That’s if you allow one thing to happen, then another thing, and another thing.

O’REILLY: Hoover, you would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can.

For some unknown reason anti-gays just can’t fathom that the union of two people based on shared values, commitment to mutual care, and a deep and abiding love is not the equivalent to a little turtle lovin’.

Hawaii Pulls and then Kills Civil Unions

The Civil Unions bill has been stuck in a Senate committee since February. Now its had some movement but it looks as though nothing will happen until next year. (Baptist Press)

The Hawaii bill would have granted homosexual couples all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name, but deadlocked at 3-3 in a Senate committee in February. Supporters tried but failed to pull it from committee during a floor vote in March, but finally succeeded May 6 when 10 senators — one more than needed — agreed to bring the proposal to the floor. (At least one-third of the Senate was needed for the move to succeed.) But minutes later an amendment to the bill passed, 16-9, killing the bill for this year because the session ended the next day and there was not enough time for the amended bill to pass in the Senate and then in the House.

(Star Bulletin)

At the close of the 2009 session, Democrats pushed out a bill, HB 444, to permit civil unions between members of the same sex. It was then amended to stipulate that a civil union was not marriage and that even non-gay couples could use it.

Time ran out for any more action this year, and Senate President Colleen Hanabusa thinks it can be easily handled next year.

“What this bill does is address the middle ground,” Hanabusa said.

Anti-Gay School Board President wants “Carrie Prejean Day”

This is a week old, but I just noticed it.

Jim Gibson is a trustee of the Vista Unified School Board in Vista, the city in northern San Diego County that Carrie Prejean calls home. His wife, Cathy, is the San Diego area director for Concerned Women for America.

Gibson is delighted that one of his alumni has taken such a prominent anti-marriage position. So much so that he wants the school district to honor her.

Trustee Jim Gibson said this week he wants to make June 1 “Carrie Prejean Day” in the district. He called Prejean, a 2005 Vista High School graduate, a “good, strong role-model.”

“We’re setting her up as an example,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, she’s a great role-model, and she’s a person who needs to be emulated.”

Gibson’s proposed proclamation calls Prejean an “exemplary student leader” who “showed integrity, leadership, dedication and high moral standards” in the Miss California and Miss USA pageants.

This is not the first time that Gibson has gotten excited about opposing same-sex marriage. He unsuccessfully tried to get the school board to endore Proposition 8.

Gibson is planning on presenting the proclamation to the board on May 14th. If it passes, perhaps the students can emulate Carrie’s high moral standards by coming to school topless.