New Hampshire and gay marriage

[Meadmaker]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/new.hampshire.same.sex.marriage/

It's a bit too early for me to say what's going on with this, but I'm having a hard time believing what I'm reading.

The New Hampshire legislature passed a gay marriage bill, and the governor promised to sign it, but only if language was inserted that made it clear that no member of the clergy could be forced to perform gay marriages.

The ammended bill was defeated.

So, there won't be any gay marriage in New Hampshire for a while, but why not? Clearly something happened between the first time the legislature passed the bill, and the second vote of the legislature. What could it be?

One possibility is that enough legislators heard from their constituents who were opposed to gay marriage that they decided to change their mind, or at least their vote. However, that isn't what the quick, spur of the moment analysis from the media seems to suggest. No, it appears that there were a number of legislators who were opposed to the language that protected the clergy.

The mind boggles. Could this really be true? Such language ought not to be considered necessary. It should be incredibly obvious that such a thing could not possibly happen, that the government of New Hampshire could not conceivably consider forcing a cleric to perform a marriage ceremony that he or she did not want to perform. It shouldn't even be a question.

I hope there has been some mistake.

[corplinx]

I was under the impression that a clergyman could pass on any marriage they did not want to perform (at least protestants for the most part).

Only _government_ members such as a justice of the peace who has a duty to perform civil marriages should be forced to do so.

[Darth Rotor]

I was under the impression that a clergyman could pass on any marriage they did not want to perform (at least protestants for the most part).

Only _government_ members such as a justice of the peace who has a duty to perform civil marriages should be forced to do so.

That makes sense, otherwise the church state boundary is badly abused.

So, since it makes sense, NH couldn't handle it?

I blame Shemp.

DR

[Meadmaker]

I did find some other references. It seems that the original vote to pass the bill was extremely close, and the New Hampshire legislature is very large. More people showed up to vote the second time.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Seems like a get out the vote issue from my reading.

I found one person who did switch, citing being "bullied" by the Governor, but that was it.

But it was sent to committee, and it will get another shot.

[YeahDude]

According to WMUR (NH Station):

Many said they expected the amendment to pass, as it passed the Senate before. The amended bill could have been on Lynch's desk by the afternoon. Instead, the amendment failed, 188-186.

So the amendment caused the support to drop by 40 votes. I think it was 220 or so the first time around.

The issue will now go back to committee for more debate. Supporters said the fight this session isn't over for them.

They are hopeful that it will be modified in a way to garner more support. I'm not sure why keeping separation between church and state would have caused a hold up in NH.




http://www.wmur.com/politics/19518666/detail.html

[Meadmaker]

So the amendment caused the support to drop by 40 votes. I think it was 220 or so the first time around.


I don't think that's correct:


House lawmakers voted 188-186 on Wednesday to reject a revised marriage bill. ...House lawmakers voted 186-179 on March 26 to approve a same-sex marriage bill.

It seems that most of the difference in voting was just because more people showed up, including more opponents of gay marriage. It doesn't seem that the church protections were a major factor.

So, I'm glad to read that the initial analyses were probably flawed, although it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[BPSCG]

Wasn't there a lawsuit sometime back where a gay couple sued a photographer who refused to take pictures for their wedding?

I don't recall how that turned out, but might there be something like that in play here?

Though I, too, don't understand how such a provision could cause a 40-vote swing.

[casebro]

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die".

But you can't drive a car with a rust hole in it, or be selective about your own religious activities.

[Meadmaker]

Wasn't there a lawsuit sometime back where a gay couple sued a photographer who refused to take pictures for their wedding?

I don't recall how that turned out, but might there be something like that in play here?

Though I, too, don't understand how such a provision could cause a 40-vote swing.

New Mexico. The photographer lost, and had to pay damages.

[YeahDude]

I don't think that's correct:




It seems that most of the difference in voting was just because more people showed up, including more opponents of gay marriage. It doesn't seem that the church protections were a major factor.

So, I'm glad to read that the initial analyses were probably flawed, although it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

My fault, thank you for the correction.