bix02138: (Default)
[personal profile] bix02138
new hampshire covernor john lynch (a democrat) forced the state legislature to modify language in a bill allowing same-sex marriage in the granite state. the new language specifically states that churches and religious groups do not have to officiate at a same-sex wedding (one wonders if they must so do for heteronormative ones); it also says these entities don't have to "provide services, facilities or goods of any kind to participants" (again, one wonders now if there is currently an imperative to so do). one could argue that this legislation suggests that if i—a nominal episcopalian—so wished, i could go into a catholic church, a mosque or a synagogue and force myself upon that house of worship; they would have to perform the ceremony of my choosing and provide access to facilities. of course that's not true; the governor is simply indulging in his—and the neanderthal religious establishment's—homophobia and heterohysteria. what a tool.

Date: 2009-05-29 10:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] orlandoman.livejournal.com
Yes, he's being a tool, allright. Such b.s.

Date: 2009-05-30 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ohmatt.livejournal.com
Agreed. Actually, my friend from NH said it best, he's a state legislator. I'm actually kind of happy it failed in the house after what he told me. Here is what he said:

"Thanks for your question. The new text includes "protections" for both religious organization as well as businesses (i.e., D.J.s, private halls, caterers...) Here is my problem-- current law already gives businesses and religious orgs the right to refuse to do anything they do not want to do based on moral objection. This right also extends to individuals...some doctors will not perform abortions, some pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill, most places that develop film will not develop nude pictures, not all grocery stores sell porno mags... the list goes on forever..There are not individual laws that apply to each case, it one broad concept that applies in all cases. This amendment gives businesses, religious orgs, and individuals to right to refuse service specifically because someone is gay. It has the same effect as the already established right to refuse. The difference is that we will be putting into law a specific group that people are allowed to refuse. In my opinion as a law maker that is nothing more than codified discrimination.

Under any other circumstance I would fight this amendment to my last breath. Moreover, the democrats would be screaming discrimination from the rooftops if not for one thing-- the carrot. We MUST pass this in order to get gay marriage. I know many of the gay rights leaders in NH and in the NH House. I have known some of them for years. Their public statements about this amendment praise it. They are acting like it is the best thing in the world, at least publicly. Let me give you the real story: They hate it even more than I do. But they have come too far on gay marriage and are too close to it being a reality to risk losing it. So, they are putting on a happy face so that the people who support them will support it.

In the three years I have been a state legislator I have never voted for something that I did not believe in. But there is too much at stake here to stand on principle. So, tomorrow I will vote yes, even when my heart is telling me no."

Date: 2009-06-01 03:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] toddpage.livejournal.com
One might even go so far as to call him a total sweatervest.

Profile

bix02138: (Default)
bix02138

June 2009

S M T W T F S
 1234 56
78910 111213
14151617181920
21222324 252627
282930    

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 08:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios