About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Next Steps on Marriage Equality

by: Dean Barker

Thu May 14, 2009 at 21:28:50 PM EDT
I am reposting Rep. Jim Splaine's comment from elwood's diary here in full (with small correction on one bill number), because it is invaluable for those of us on the outside looking in:
The Process  

House Bill 436, the core of creating marriage equality, has passed the House and Senate.  It has been "enrolled," and is on the House Speaker's desk.  It cannot be recalled by the Legislature.  The bill will be held by the House Speaker until "companion legislation," for want of a better term, is ready to pass on.  Already, House Bill 320 310 is a bill that has passed the House and Senate that has a few sentences of technical correction in the marriage laws.    

House Bill 73 is a bill that covers issues relating to marriage statutes, unrelated at the moment to marriage equality.  It could be amended to include the statutory references that Governor John Lynch wants changed to provide for greater and clear religious protections.  The bill has a hearing next Tuesday when we'll be offering language that will improve the statute which the Governor wants.    

Then, if the Senate and House approve with House Bill 73, with the new language, it too will be ready for signature.  That bill, along with House Bill 436 will go to the Governor and he has said he will sign them -- HB 436 providing marriage equalty, and HB 73 as well as HB 320 310, each dealing with small statutory changes so that HB 436 meets his requests.  

All this is an open process which, really, has been eight months in the making, and which include recommendations of the House, Senate, and now the Governor's Office.  The timing could be that all will be finished by the end of next week.

Please keep contacting your House and Senate members and ask them to support the completion of this process so that House Bill 436 and marriage equality will be a reality.

Once more to the phones, letters, and email. You can find your House Rep here and your Senator here.
Dean Barker :: Next Steps on Marriage Equality
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Next Steps on Marriage Equality | 11 comments
Where and when (0.00 / 0)
will the hearing on HB73 be?
from nhftm email (4.00 / 2)
 public hearing on Tuesday the 19th at 1:45pm Room 103 in the State House
[ Parent ]
Next Tuesday, 1:45 PM, State House (0.00 / 0)
The hearing on House Bill 73, "relative to the solemnization of marriage," will be held in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:45 PM in Room 103 of the State House.  We'll be offering language that will be worked on during the next few days that will cover the concern Governor John Lynch has for clarifying the independence of religious institutions.  
[ Parent ]
there is debate (0.00 / 0)
on other blogs as to whether the governor's amendment amounts to giving up some existing anti-discrimination protections in exchange for gaining access to civil marriage.  anyone care to comment on the truth of that?
I don't see any such thing (0.00 / 0)
in the language of the amendment. If there is wording that worries you, perhaps you could cite it.
[ Parent ]
the wording in the 1st section (0.00 / 0)
would seem to me to make the orchard grove, nj case a non-starter in new hampshire.  that is, a public accomodation owned by a religious org would be able to discriminate with impunity.  

i am NOT a lawyer, which is why i'm asking this question.  i'm not saying there is a problem there, i'm asking whether this has been discussed and if so, if someone can give me assurances that we're not making a devilish trade here.

[ Parent ]
Coupla things (0.00 / 0)
1. IANAL, either. But if you want to bring up cases, bring up an actual cite.

2. Religious groups CAN "discriminate with impunity" in general. Group A can refuse marriages to couples who won't raise their children in the faith etc. The question is: does the new language change things? I don't think so.

[ Parent ]
here is an article (4.00 / 1)
about the new jersey case.  basically, a religious org owned a non-church facility on the shore that was rented out to all and sundry as a picturesque wedding place, and was considered a public acomodation by the government and given tax breaks on that basis.  then they refused to let 2 lesbians rent it for their ceremony, and lawsuits ensued.  the lesbians eventually won because, as i understand it, the owners of the facility couldn't dodge state non-discrimination laws because this was a matter of public accomodation for which they got tax breaks.  if such a thing happened in n.h. if the governor's amendment is adopted, would these lesbians have any recourse?  i assume they would have recourse right now.  people better be sure they're not shooting themselves in the foot with these extra super special allowances to religious people who insist on special rights who already have ample protection under the u.s. constitution.  if the amendment is just another way of restating the 1st amendemnt, fine.  but i hear no one assuring me that it doesn't go farther.

can i as an atheist refuse a couple to marry in my rental hall because i am disturbed by their religious convictions?  just wondering if the ability to discriminate goes both ways with this amendment.

[ Parent ]
I thought about that... (0.00 / 0)
And then I realized that, at least for me, if I would want to marry in a church, I would want to know the priest or minister personally first, and not have some complete stranger whose views I don't know do it. Which would totally get rid of the discrimination issue. And besides, if the person doing it knows the people personally and knew them for a while, it'd be harder for him to say no, imho.
[ Parent ]
Next Steps on Marriage Equality | 11 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox