Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John Lynch, the governor of New Hampshire, has announced that he will sign a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in that state if the legislature adds a broad religious exemption to it. The legislation has already been passed by both houses of Congress there, but they will now hold a hearing on adding the religious exemption. Here's the language the governor wants added to the bill:
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.
The main pro-SSM group in the state, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, has endorsed this change. There will be a hearing on it at the State House on Tuesday and they are calling for people to support the change. I agree with them. Even as broadly written as it is, it does not cover public employees, only private organizations. Fine with me. Get it passed and let people get married.
Politics
Comments
Well, first I am not a lawyer. Second, I don't live in NH. Third, if is good enough for the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition then it is good enough for me, but otherwise I would think that it was overly broad.
Posted by: Don | May 18, 2009 9:54 AM
The phrase "the promotion of marriage" is far too vague for my liking. What does that even mean?
Posted by: Bachalon | May 18, 2009 9:56 AM
I can see it now.
Wedding invitations that will read:
"Your presence is requested at the joyous occasion of the nuptials of _____ to _______, at the office of the Mayor of Salem, (or Seabrook, Nashua, Manchester, Peterboro) NH. Reception to follow at ________ , a lovely non-discriminatory facility in Lawrence, (or Newburyport, Haverhill, Lowell, etc.) MA."
Once the law is passed I would guess that a lot of nice reception halls will be accepting these folks money which, while gay, is just as green as anyone else's.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 9:58 AM
It will be interesting to see what religious organizations will consider "the promotion of marriage" once this passes. I can see some church groups tying all anti-gay actions to a "promotion of marriage" justification.
Posted by: Umlud | May 18, 2009 10:01 AM
Well, the law would already protect religious organizations that oppose gay marriage, just as it protects Catholic priests who refuse to marry divorced people, etc. But, if it's necessary to reinforce that protection in this bill, then I'm glad they're doing it. As Ed pointed out, as long as it doesn't allow public officials to refuse to do their job, then I completely support it.
Posted by: catgirl | May 18, 2009 10:28 AM
Our local (NH) paper this morning still does not quite call this a done deal--there is serious lobbying going on on both sides, and at least one group put the odds still at around 50-50. Given where we were just a few years ago, that is wildly successful, but mine will not be the only sigh of "about fucking time" when it passes.
Posted by: Anon | May 18, 2009 10:39 AM
Wait, are the folks gay or the money? You use the same object noun for "gay" and "green".
Grammar ambiguity WHOOP WHOOP!!!
Posted by: Brandon | May 18, 2009 10:40 AM
Don: perhaps the Governor is counting on NH and US courts to strike down this provision in the future as "overly broad."
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 18, 2009 10:45 AM
Has anyone compared this exemption with those of Vermont and Connecticut? They all have them.
Posted by: yoshi | May 18, 2009 11:02 AM
Makes sense to me: establish Gay Marriage as the status quo, and deal with the issue of discriminatory use of public funds and subsidies by religious charities later. Divide and conquer.
Posted by: ed rowland | May 18, 2009 11:17 AM
Basically these exemptions are little more than redundancies, reminders to the religious idiots of what is obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of constitutional law: churches aren't going to be forced to marry gays if they don't want to, private religious societies don't have to accept gay couples. Duh, but if these paranoid bigots need the assurance, then by all means I'm for it. ("See, Virginia? There are no monsters under the bed.")
Posted by: gary l. day | May 18, 2009 11:17 AM
As a NH citizen I'm glad the Governor finally got off the fence and said something constructive about the bill. Here's hoping it happens!
Posted by: KNC3 | May 18, 2009 11:18 AM
Since this does not limit itself to rejection of marriage between two partners of the same sex, it seems to me that it could have non-obvious implications. For example, what about a religious group that considers miscegenation sinful? Would this grant them freedom from some sort of “discrimination” to which the state is currently entitled?
Posted by: Coises | May 18, 2009 11:48 AM
Actually, no church has to marry any couple that they don't want to, for any reason. A church can refuse to recognize the marriage of an interracial couple, an interfaith couple, a couple where both are of a different religion than the church, a couple involving at least one divorced person, or any couple that the church simply does not think should be married, for any reason at all. However, the stat can not refuse to marry an interracial couple or an interracial couple, and that's the point. Churches already have the right to deny any marriage at all, and allowing gay marriage would not infringe on their rights in any way. For some reason, the general public seems to be completely unaware of this fact, and that's why they are so opposed to same sex marriage.
Posted by: catgirl | May 18, 2009 12:02 PM
As others have pointed out this exemption looks unnecessary. Churches already have the ability to deny service for any reason to anyone. However, if it sidesteps a common claim by opponents then so much the better.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | May 18, 2009 12:25 PM
catgirl:
"For some reason, the general public seems to be completely unaware of this fact, and that's why they are so opposed to same sex marriage."
It's not just that they're unaware. The meme that gay marriage will destroy marriage between heterosexuals is one that is actively promulgated from a lot of pulpits--and the whackaloon reichwingers.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 12:36 PM
This is fine. Let the market punish bigots who refuse service to same-sex couples.
Posted by: John | May 18, 2009 1:42 PM
But I do not see any language directed at public funding. It may not be necessary, but one of the situations that the NOM people tried to pawn off as a horror of SSM was a reception hall owned by a religious organization that was either on public land or received public funds. It is fine to be a bigot in your own house of worship, but not is my tax dollars help pay for the house. Is that covered in this language? Need it be?
Posted by: PensiveGadfly | May 18, 2009 3:00 PM
I'd like to see a real-life Homer Simpson capitalize on the opportunity to provide a service that others will not.
Posted by: Jon Lester | May 18, 2009 3:18 PM
Oh, Nooooooooooooooooes!!
The Loving KKKristian Married People's (TM) right to a sanctified union is being trampled under the strappy, FM jackboots of the the GAYtheists.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 3:39 PM
The walls are falling. Soon all hell will break loose in the Holy Institute of Marriage.
I'll even wager that great moral icons, such as Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, will soon file for divorce.
It could happen!
Posted by: Ick of the East | May 19, 2009 5:13 AM
Overly broad hell, to me it doesn't seem to change anything. Unless I was missing the law that says individuals and non-government organizations are required by law to recognize and promote anyone's marriage.
I mean I for one, refuse to recognize the marriages of Catholics who have previously been divorced and reserve the right to accuse fundamentalists who remarry after being divorced of adultery...
Wait, are the folks gay or the money? You use the same object noun for "gay" and "green".
I think it was his way of saying that these halls would accept payment in three dollar bills...
Posted by: DuWayne | May 20, 2009 4:08 PM
...and the amendment stalls in the House.
http://www.wmur.com/politics/19514243/detail.html
Posted by: Anon | May 20, 2009 6:30 PM
The problem originates with the imposition of SSM which lacks a broad social consensus among the citizens for whom government is a servant and not a master.
Posted by: Chairm | May 26, 2009 3:17 AM
The problem originates with the imposition of SSM which lacks a broad social consensus among the citizens for whom government is servant and not master.
Posted by: Chairm | May 26, 2009 3:18 AM
The problem originates with the imposition of SSM which lacks a broad social consensus among the citizens for whom government is servant and not master.
Posted by: Chairm | May 26, 2009 3:20 AM
Chairm - Greater than a majority support same sex couples having all the benefits of marriage, and that's not broad enough for you? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 26, 2009 3:52 AM
Obviously Chairm requires everyone on Earth to declare their support three times. It doesn't count unless you say it three times. :P
Hey, homophobic dumbass, read the fucking error message! Then you might not look like quite so much of a moron.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 26, 2009 8:56 AM
Phantom - cruel, but fair. ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 26, 2009 9:49 AM
The social consensus needed is not unanimity but neither is it merely a hoped-for majority in future public opinion surveys.
Neither is it merely a majority of elected representatives who have a duty to be responsive to their constituents and to inform their constituents in the democratic process of compromise and coalition building. The social consensus for this reform needs to be much broader to be workable in a pluralistic society.
Unless, of course, the goal is to force people to comply rather than to convince people to cooperate and even to support the change in public policy.
Given the two responses above, that's very likely the real goal of SSM supporters.
Posted by: Chairm | May 26, 2009 5:20 PM
The governor's language is not broad enough and the amendment needs to expanded. The language needs to be expanded to include a conscience clause for any individual or business owner who takes exception because of devout religious beliefs. Religious organizations are made up of individuals, and the individual right to free exercise and dissent for the sake of conscience does not stop at the meetinghouse door. Religious belief lies with and is exercised principally by the individual. The Catholic cake decorator should not lose her religious protections when she leaves Mass and then be subject to a lawsuit if she cannot in good conscience agree to letter out "George and Frank" on a wedding cake because the state has coerced her to do so by rule of law.
Will the Orthodox Jewish photographer be able to decline the request to photograph a same-sex wedding only if and because it falls on a Friday night or Saturday morning when he attends synagogue services? Or will his orthodox reading of the Torah cause him to be found guilty of discrimination when providing services to such a wedding on a Sunday afternoon even though his religious belief forbids such a union, and by extension, he feels, his participatory role in it?
The same kinds of questions can be asked about a Muslim printshop owner; they are serious concerns.
Ultimately, the question is, should religious persons be protected? Is conscientious objection and dissent allowed in America? If you say "no, this would be discriminatory," well... of course. Religions, as practiced by individuals as well as corporately, always discrimate, most times concerning various behaviors. And this is where the problem lies. A NH house rep from Windham is quoted in yesterday's paper as saying that to allow a business owner the freedom to discriminate on religious grounds is akin to skinheads discriminating on the grounds that a customer is not blond and blue-eyed. This rep is confused and can't put together a good analogy. What the rep doesn't seem to understand is that hair and eye colors are not behaviors. The Muslim printshop owner that cannot in good conscience engage in commerce that would violate his religious beliefs (such as, say, printing invites to a lesbian wedding)is objecting to a set of behaviors. He believes in a certain set of religious precepts that inform him about human behaviors. He has a basic right to decline participation in whatever would violate those scruples, even the freedom to decline in establishing business dealings.
If not, then the state has overstepped its already burgeoning boundaries. It has deemed itself worthy to tell people they cannot practice their religion in every area of their lives (such as how they conduct business) beyond the confines of their house of worship.
Posted by: smr | May 31, 2009 8:35 PM
Except, smr, that the only exemption comes at the expense of gay rights. If it was a Christian Identity business owner requesting an exemption from hiring blacks, or something else along those lines, it would shot down in a second.
Posted by: Bachalon | May 31, 2009 8:44 PM
Actually, Bachalon, you have grasped part of the point, I think, in the latter half of your response. Black, white, blond, deaf... are not in and of themselves behaviors, whereas it is the homosexual behavior that is the area of offense to many religious people as they follow their particular religious code.
Religions and religious persons discriminate most often precisely on the point of behavior. Religions discriminate on the basis of... for instance... religion. Mennonites, as a rule, would not admit into membership a practicing Mormon, or provide space for a Mormon wedding. This practice of refusal is protected under the law. But does the Mennonite (or Presbyterian, or Jewish) cellist's refusal to provide paid services to the Mormon wedding (for conscience reasons) come at the expense of Mormon rights? Should the Mormons have a case with the Human Rights Commission? Or are religious/conscience boundaries tolerated as exercised by the individual?
Is it possible to accept that for the sake of individual conscience and freedom, some rights and freedoms are going to unavoidably clash, and may have to coexist, hands-off, as they are? Otherwise, one person's constitutional rights are limited, violated, and suffocated by the other's. That is not an acceptable alternative for a free people. The one with deeply-held religious values would retain the freedom to withhold commerce without fear of legal censure, and the one seeking commerce is, of course, free to shop the market for a business relationship unhampered by such scruples.
Posted by: smr | June 1, 2009 12:14 PM
smr - Two points:
1) Homosexuality is not believed to be 'a behaviour' (as you put it) but a physical difference in the brain of an individual, it is instinctive and innate. Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists & etc. follow their religious beliefs. These beliefs are all learned behaviours. By your logic I should be able to ban a Christian from utilising my business because "I object to their behaviour."
2) If the temple, church, mosque, synagogue & etc. are open for public use then there is an expectation that the public can use it (the same applies for businesses). Therefore if it's a subscription only club you can discriminate, if anyone can walk in, you can't, no matter what you believe. Of course it applies equally to atheists too. So, no I couldn't exclude you from my business for being a Christian (except as noted earlier). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 12:42 PM
DJ, the source of homosexual proclivities are still very much debated, such as in the area of brain changes, as you have brought up-- studies regarding the brain revolve around changes occuring in the brain as a result of repeated behaviors, or vice versa-- so the theory of "innateness" is very much unresolved. However, this is really a dead end line of discussion because it is completely possible that the brain structure of religious people could be studied and be found to have something that points to an innate proclivity for being religious. So then we'd be back to where we started!
For most religious groups with orthodox, conservative readings of their texts, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or others, the question of some kind of proclivity toward a particular behavior is not really the issue of concern. A general survey of these religions will find that they all assume strong proclivities for good or ill exist within humanity. What most of them teach is the acceptability or unacceptability of acting upon those proclivities; thus it is the behavior that is always the thing at issue.
Religions are always going to teach that one kind of behavior is acceptable and another kind is unacceptable, and religious persons who are devout practitioners of these religions are going to keep themselves from acting on or participating in the ones their belief systems teach are unacceptable.
The question is, are we ready in America to discard the Constitutional right to religious freedom and conscience? Do we no longer value the right of the individual to the free exercise of religion outside of their meetinghouse? If your objection to Christian behavior is rooted in your religious belief, you should have the freedom to say no to entering into a business contract with that person; for instance, if you are a devout Muslim musician who cannot in good conscience provide music for a Christian wedding, so be it. The Christian couple is always free to find someone whose conscience will not prevent him from doing business.
On your other issue, temples, mosques, churches, Kingdom Halls, etc. are usually NOT open for public use. They are not public parks or municipal auditoriums. They are private facilities owned by private organizations, retained for private use. A private organization may invite the public to ATTEND its worship services or other assemblies, meetings or ceremonies on any given day, or it may choose to disinvite the public to any kind of assembly, meeting, sacramental ceremony, etc. However, it still remains private property, privately controlled by whatever beliefs the private group adheres to. Most religious people who organize themselves into groups ARE subscription-only clubs, making a dividing line between members and non-members. As such, the public has no grounds for any kind of expectation to use the facilities of a private group, religious or otherwise.
Posted by: smr | June 3, 2009 4:06 PM