Gov. John Lynch this afternoon announced that, with certain changes to protect those whose religious viewpoints oppose same-sex marriages from lawsuits or other burdens, he will sign marriage equality into law. The legislative leaders support the changes and expect to make them quickly. Marriage equality, barring some unseen development, will be a reality in the sixth state in our nation within days.
Gov. Lynch said:
I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.
This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.
This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.
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.
The language that he wants added can be found below the fold, but — though expansive — it seems to me to be reasonable. If a church wants to own a reception hall used primarily for members’ marriages and charges them to use it, it seems reasonable to me to expect that — though technically entering the public marketplace — the church should not be forced to host a wedding reception at its hall that is opposed by that religion.
Sure, we can get into a lot of technical arguments about it, but — let’s be honest — there are better places for a gay couple to host their wedding reception. It’s not worth sacrificing marriage equality to prove this point.
Now, it would appear that from the moment the governor’s statement was issued most folks up in New Hampshire believed that the lawmakers would make the governor’s suggested changes. Some are none too pleased. The publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, Joseph W. McQuaid, writes some comments that seem worthy of reflection:
It is obvious from his statement this afternoon that Gov. John Lynch has made a calculated political decision on the gay marriage bill. Whether or not the Legislature goes along with the changes he seeks, and we think it will, the fact is that Lynch has decided that politics wins over principle.
That must be a great disappointment to the people of New Hampshire, no matter on what side of this issue they find themselves.
As this newspaper has pointed out, Lynch has said repeatedly that he believes the institution of marriage is and should be preserved for one man and one woman. Civil unions, which Lynch signed, cover any legal question of equity for homosexual couples. Protecting marriage is not a question of equity.
What a world has New England become that a curmudgeonly publisher can write about how a politician is supporting marriage equality because it’s the politically expedient thing to do? How fantastic.
As for those last two statements, the first is self-defeating in a way that I’m not sure was intended by the publisher. The couching of equity for gay and lesbian couples in terms not just of equity but only of “legal equity” is too careful and, in doing so, misses the point. Drawing specific attention to “legal equity” admits that civil unions do not, themselves, create actual equity.
The last statement is, unfortunately for the publisher, true. Protecting marriage, as McQuaid would use the term, is not a question of equity. Protecting the citizens of New Hampshire, as the Gov. Lynch sees his job and as lawmakers see their jobs, is a matter of equity. Or, as Gov. Lynch himself put it:
My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.
That “broader lens,” though not the one through which Publisher McQuaid is looking, is the lens that sees a society embracing true equality.
Thank you, Gov. Lynch.
[UPDATED throughout to include the fact that legislative leaders support the changes.
Also, I urge readers also to read The New Civil Rights Movement, which has been very up-to-the-minute on recent marriage developments. Also, thanks to ATL for the link!]
* * * * *
Below is the language Gov. Lynch has proposed:
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.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
That “broader lens,” is probably the need to be re-elected, not that of common justice.
Still, I completely agree that this is palatable, and I loved your point about that curmudgeonly publisher.
It is indeed an amazing time, and I hope the good fight charges on through other states.
I find “II” to be a bit off and here’s why. I live in San Francisco, where, several years ago a law was passed that anyone doing business with SF was required to offer domestic partner benefits to same sex couples. Catholic Charities offered some services that were funded by SF and they were threatening to close up shop because The Pope says so. In the end, they stayed. They continued to get money from SF as well. How? They allowed employees to add one additional person to their benefits. This *could* be a domestic partner but it could be a father or cousin or anyone. They found a way to satisfy SF and please The Pope. If the Catholic Church can figure out a way to live in both the 21st and 16th century at the same time, than any religion can.
And, Chris, I’m so excited to find you blogging again. I am a printer, not a lawyer, but law has always interested me. I grew up in suburban DC so the law and politics were part of the local scene while I was growing up. When SF was gay marrying you were blogging and as the country convulsed at the inevitable coming of gay marriage you gave insight into the goings on from a legal prospective. I look forward to reading your take on how the law progresses from here. Lawdork 1.0 was a time of some major setbacks. I think Lawdork 2.0 will be a time of unimaginable gains.