![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
NH Governor's statement
-- http://www.necn.com/Boston/NECN-Extra/2009/05/14/Gov-Lynch-We-must-protect/1242338353.html
OK, i'm back to wondering just what the religious organizations are being protected from, beyond performing the ceremony.
Ah
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.
--- http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/14/731454/-NH-Gov-to-sign-gay-marriage-bill-with-changes
What does a church need to be protected *from*? Just because state law allows divorces and allows someone who has divorced to remarry, doesn't mean a church is forced to observe that. (Certainly the Catholic Church doesn't believe it is possible to "remarry" after divorce. http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=54 ) And there are Churches that already offer the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. States haven't done anything to prohibit that behavior.
I suppose if a religious organization runs a school or hospital or similar program, it might hire someone for a job, discover they were married in a form that the organization disapproved of, and not want to provide benefits as they would have if the couple were married in a form they approved of? Is this what the church is being protected from?
Nope, it's just making sure churches don't have to perform marriages they don't want to:
"Lynch asked that the already-approved legislation be revised to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays. Gay marriage supporters said they do not object." -- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/05/14/9461941-ap.html
" The bill which has already pass both houses of the New Hampshire legislature already makes it clear that various churches will not be forced into performing ceremonies that they do not wish to. The wording is a bit vaguer than Lynch feels comfortable with, apparently.... Both Vermont and Maine, which have also passed their own same-sex marriage laws, have these religious exemptions written into them. Vermont’s is explicit that churches cannot be forced into performing ceremonies that they do not agree with. " -- http://lezgetreal.com/?p=12892
How *could* a state have forced a church to perform a sacrament or ritual in opposition of Church teaching given the Constitution??
"The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.
"But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.
"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.
-- http://www.necn.com/Boston/NECN-Extra/2009/05/14/Gov-Lynch-We-must-protect/1242338353.html
OK, i'm back to wondering just what the religious organizations are being protected from, beyond performing the ceremony.
Ah
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.
--- http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/14/731454/-NH-Gov-to-sign-gay-marriage-bill-with-changes
NH gov will sign gay marriage bill if it’s changed
By The Associated Press
05.14.2009 3:13pm EDT
(Concord) New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage, but only if it strengthens protections for churches opposed to gay marriage.
[...] Lynch said Thursday he wants clearer language to ensure that people won’t be forced to violate their religious principles. He says laws in Connecticut and Vermont do that.
--http://www.365gay.com/news/nh-gov-will-sign-gay-marriage-bill-if-its-changed/
What does a church need to be protected *from*? Just because state law allows divorces and allows someone who has divorced to remarry, doesn't mean a church is forced to observe that. (Certainly the Catholic Church doesn't believe it is possible to "remarry" after divorce. http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=54 ) And there are Churches that already offer the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. States haven't done anything to prohibit that behavior.
I suppose if a religious organization runs a school or hospital or similar program, it might hire someone for a job, discover they were married in a form that the organization disapproved of, and not want to provide benefits as they would have if the couple were married in a form they approved of? Is this what the church is being protected from?
Nope, it's just making sure churches don't have to perform marriages they don't want to:
"Lynch asked that the already-approved legislation be revised to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays. Gay marriage supporters said they do not object." -- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/05/14/9461941-ap.html
" The bill which has already pass both houses of the New Hampshire legislature already makes it clear that various churches will not be forced into performing ceremonies that they do not wish to. The wording is a bit vaguer than Lynch feels comfortable with, apparently.... Both Vermont and Maine, which have also passed their own same-sex marriage laws, have these religious exemptions written into them. Vermont’s is explicit that churches cannot be forced into performing ceremonies that they do not agree with. " -- http://lezgetreal.com/?p=12892
How *could* a state have forced a church to perform a sacrament or ritual in opposition of Church teaching given the Constitution??