(Click here to contact House Reps and here for Senators. - promoted by Dean Barker)
During the past three days, I haven't been blogging much -- I've been focusing on communicating with House and Senate members about House Bill 436, and what needs to be done during the next three days. I'm hopeful that by Wednesday we will have approved the additional statutory language that Governor John Lynch wants to make it clear that religious organizations and those connected with them have freedom and independence in our state law.
I have seen considerable dialogue, and numerous questions, on www.BlueHampshire.com during the past couple of days, and I've noticed some excellent responses by Kathy Sullivan, Dean Barker, and Brian Rater, as well as others. I think those questions have been accurately answered, and I'll be giving more streamlined details in the next day or so about the Governor's language to House and Senate members. I'll post those on www.BlueHampshire.com too.
Governor John Lynch, to his credit, sees that his job is to provide protections for everyone in the state. That is why he wants the even clearer, more specific language for religious freedom/independence. During the past few days, as I researched the marriage equality discussions leading to the final versions of legislation in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, it's clear that their legislatures and governors went through a similar process.
The Governor's proposed language covers two core elements:
|
|
1. Making it clear that "a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by" such a group, as well as non-profit institutions and organizations connected with religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges" for marriage ceremonies.
Currently in law, religious groups do indeed have such general freedom and independence. Many a Church refuses certain marriages even among heterosexual couples. It's their right. They have their own standards. Governor Lynch wants even clearer language, and I think that's fine. It changes, essentially, nothing -- it takes no rights away from same-gendered couples who will be married under HB 436, because those rights currently do not exist. Churches and religions decide for themselves their own requirements.
2. The Governor also wants to make it clear that there remains freedom of association and operation for fraternal benefit societies. I think we all agree that they should have their own freedom to exercise their religion as the Governor wants, for charitable and educational purposes, "as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire."
I think that those of us who have been fighting for marriage equality all these years also want to continue to protect religious freedom and independence. We're out to change hearts and ensure our rights, not to change the status of religions to be free to set their own standards on their own private property, or through the organizations they run and operate. That's a line which government should not cross. That's the separation of Church and State.
The Governor's language is being accepted by most of those involved in fighting for the cause of marriage equality. Similar language was included in marriage equality legislation in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, and it's being well-received there. Religious organizations SHOULD have the right to "serve" only those with whom they agree. In fact, when we see what has happened in other countries throughout the world, I think that's an American tradition that most of us want to preserve.
The original HB 436 provided religious freedom, and the Senate version made that even clearer. What John Lynch wants to do is provide even more clear distinctions and protections. So, his language is actually pretty decent.
I hope we can say yes to the new language. It is really only a few sentences that need to be included in the part of state statute covering religious freedom and independence, and isn't actually added as an amendment onto House Bill 436. Then, as he has already said, he will be able to sign HB 436.
We still have a major vote in the State Senate and House this coming Wednesday. So, please keep in touch with your Senators and House members. Our opposition surely is. There have been over a dozen votes in the House and Senate on this issue. We need two more. It would be so sad to lose at this point because of disunity, disagreement, or lack of attendance of our supporters on Wednesday.
Check into the NH Freedom To Marry WEBSITE for additional ideas: http://nhftm.org/
Let's do this. Equality. 2009. With one signature.
|
