Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:30 AM
Sat Nov 14
65 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/21/09
The legislation had passed through the house previously. It had then been amended in the Senate and this was a re-vote on the amended legislation.
The final vote was 188-186. The two votes that made the difference were actually made by famously gay men within the house. They were angry that the legislation had to be amended and felt that they were being bullied by the republicans. They completely did not realize that they would be the deciding votes.
When I was talking to my mom, I let her how proud I am of her every time she votes for this bill despite the angry phone calls, e-mails and even confrontations. As a Catholic, it's been very hard for her to stand up for gay rights. She believes that humanity and love for other trumps outdated beliefs. Unfortunately this is not a popular belief in her parish and it's harder every time she has to stand up for this.
186+ legislators really do believe in this and it's not always an easy stance to take.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
What we are talking about here is expanding the right to discriminate to services and locations outside any religious house. To let people who run businesses open to the public to say -open to all but gays.
05/21/09
05/21/09
Marriage is marriage - for everyone. God. I don't get the reasoning behind people's opposition to it. How the hell is a homosexual marriage going to affect/hurt/harm/whatever their reasoning of the day is a heterosexual marriage?
It's intolerance just for intolerences' sake. There is no logic! Makes my brain hurt.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I'm confident that it's only a matter of time.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I read "An animated version is expected to go through next week" and I got really excited.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
@kelsium: Wow! Had I been introduced to that video before today, I would surely be humming that song along to this post.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
No religious organization ever has to perform a ceremony for anyone, nor are they required to let anyone use their space.
Wedding vendors never have to work with anyone. Yes, if you walk into a store, the clerk has to sell you whatever you want (within reason), no matter who you are, but when I go to a photographer, florist, or caterer to negotiate their services for my wedding, they are free to refuse my custom for any reason. (Until we sign the contracts, anyway.)
So, although I completely understand the clarification that "your church doesn't have to perform any marriage that is against the principles of your religion," how is the provision (a) necessary, and (b) threatening? Isn't it just common sense, codified for paranoia's sake?
I mean, in a general sense it's pretty awesome that they want the bill without the codified exceptions, because it IS paranoia for paranoia's sake. I'm just confused about the whole thing.
But then, what do I know? I'm from Massachusetts. ;) (Even though I live in DC now, hehe.)
05/21/09
I think in many ways, it's similar to medical professionals refusing to provide birth control to people simply because they don't believe in it. Though it is technically illegal to discriminate against someone simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.
05/21/09
I had more in mind refusal to provide services to start with -- calling a photographer and getting a cold, "sorry, busy *click*."
05/21/09
I imagine the bill would allow vendors to say "I don't support gay marriage, so I won't work with you."
05/21/09
Am I getting that right? Did they vote it down because they DON'T want the religious protections in there? Wow, that's kind of amazing.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
However, if the churches are receiving state money for anything, they may not engage in certain kinds of discriminatory practices (such as race discrimination, in the Bob Jones University interracial dating case). I wonder if this would mean Catholic schools affiliated with parishes that refuse to perform gay weddings would be denied state money, since the school isn't technically the church itself but it is affiliated with the parish.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I'm never going to argue that discrimination is right, and I happen to be a HUGE fan of gay marriage because it pisses me off that my friends and my parents' friends don't have equal civil rights to me under the law. It's reprehensible that my parents friends', who have been together for 36 years, are not considered married by the federal government (they are, finally, by the state -- they live in Boston). But since a caterer or photographer or florist or whatever can turn down your request for their services for any reason whatsoever, how would this be plausibly enforceable or helpful?
05/21/09
05/21/09
And that is all I am saying because I get really passionate about this and I don't want to ruin my day.
05/21/09
The word "marriage" is not a word that explicitly has to do with religion. Religion is the thing that people use to justify inequality. But marriage IS separated in the proper way -- which is why you MUST have a marriage license signed and submitted and filed and approved by the state government before you can be "married." You can have 20 ceremonies in a church, but without a state-approved marriage license you're legally no more married than a gay couple in Texas.
05/21/09
05/21/09
@Laulau:
Yes and yes. It feels good to be backed up on this. And of course I support gay marriage, I have loved ones who are gay and I want them to have the same rights as me. The same right to a marriage certified by the state. They already have the right to a marriage performed by religious officials, because there is a separation between church and state. Religions can marry whoever they want to marry.
05/21/09
Of course, my separationism is quite radical and would never go over in the USA, a place where the highest court in the land actually said that we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Oy.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I think that using the term marriage at all is an impermissible violation of the Establishment Clause, period, and I'm not saying that because I don't want equal rights for everyone. I'm saying it because of my deeply held convictions about religious liberty and the impermissibility of favoring religion over irreligion. This would be putting a law in place to fix the inequality and it would hit two birds with one stone.
05/21/09
05/21/09
Crap, I wasn't going to get into this. It still hurts me to revisit that part of my life.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
Sure they do. They'll always have something to object about. And I can already hear the cries and moans that the liberal government would be censoring Christianity and silencing religious America.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
When Portia was calling Ellen her wife and talking about her marriage on Leno I thought that was so helpful, because it shows people how much they have in common and makes the relationship seem more normal to your average person. If you give it a new and unfamiliar name, I think it labels it as something other and the time it takes to get everyone to accept these couples will take longer.
There is my other two cents.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
New Hampsherites are a little too conservative for their own good.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I guess from where I'm sitting, it'd be better to pass the bill with this unnecessary provision than to reach a stalemate with the governor that prevents any gay-marriage legislation from passing. Disclaimer, I'm not familiar with NH politics, so I don't know what sort of political power play may be going on.