May

14

2009

Lynch Statment on Gay Marriage

by Doug

Gov Lynch

CONCORD – Gov. John Lynch released the following statement today regarding same-sex legislation in New Hampshire:

"The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides.

"My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

"In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.

"Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination. 

"At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term ‘civil union’ to ‘civil marriage.’ Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change. 

"I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.

"I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

"Throughout history, our society’s views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded.  New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

"That is what I believe we must do today.

"But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

"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.

"If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.

"We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

"I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

Like it? Share it!

by

See all posts by Doug
Visit Doug's website

Leave a Comment

  • PRICILLA

    Yes we knew that the gov would cave Oh well. Now maybe the Happy gay future married couples will finally go away. I am sure they have other agendas best of luck to them more cases for the Divorce courts. Just another way to stimulate the economy. Marriage FEE

  • Dana

    From what the Gov. said it looks like the religious heteros have also “won” but they tend to always get what they want no matter how right or wrong.

  • Terry Stewart

    How about the non religious heteros have they “won” too? In an earlier blog post someone was acting as though there is no gay agenda. We now find out this is not true. The news reports that the Gay and Lesbien alliance groups vows to make marriage legal in all 6 NE States by 2010. Sounds like an agenda to me. As I travel about the country I am hearing more and more dissent against gay and lesbiens on this issue. What a shame to go in a reverse direction after all the progress we made in coming closer together only to now go in the opposite direction. This one falls under the catagory of “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!”
    It has now become nothing more than an agenda. Agendas are nothing more than something people either support or oppose. Where there is NO coming together and no middle ground. For the most part, agendas are something people don’t like either way and just want it to STOP!
    Good luck with your agenda.

  • http://www.granitegrok.com doug

    This won’t end with “clarification” or “protection” for religion. Why some from the movemnet HATE religion, and will stop at nothing to see it destroyed. The courts will be a useful tool in this. As I’ve said again and again, the worst part is that the teaching of the gay agenda/lifestyle will continue apace in the schools. What happens to those who knowingly corrupt the children? Sigh…

  • Putney

    I am shocked, just shocked to learn that we have an agenda (like you don’t have an agenda). Of course we do – we want every gay and lesbian citizen of this country to have equal rights, free from discrimination (still not guaranteed in a majority of the states in this country), and the ability to marry who they want – just like every heterosexual citizen. As for religion, and I can only speak for myself, I don’t hate religion. I just do not want you to dictate your religious beliefs onto me or the government.

  • Terry Stewart

    My prespective doesn’t come from any religious belief on this subject (or any other for that matter). Putney is taking a page from the book Brave New World. Repeat a lie until it becomes a truth.
    Once again for the selective hearing crowd; “You have always had the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.” You just want to change the rules and give yourself “special” rights. As for being free from descrimination? Good Luck with that. You’ve all but enssured nothing but the opposite.
    Unfortunately for you Putney, you no longer speak for yourself. You are now part of a group that speaks for all of you. That’s why it’s called an agenda… (duh!)
    I had no agenda in regards to this matter but thanks to your group, now I do. Your group has widdled it down to two sides, Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Since I am of the later and there seems to be no respect for my “group” from your “group” then I reciprocate in kind.
    It is most unfortunate that it has come down to a religious compromise for the Governor because there are so many more people that are against the gay agenda, who like myself,aren’t basing the reasons on religious believes. In the end, that will be the biggest problem facing the gay agenda in the future. You said it best Putney “Don’t dictate your beliefs on me or the government”. I guess that doesn’t apply to you. No surprise there because as I said earlier, you think you get special rules.

  • mer

    Putney: do believe that a religious organization should have the ability marry anyone that meets their criteria for marriage? If so, do you accept the converse that the same religious organization should have the ability to NOT marry anyone that does not meet their criteria?
    The Catholic Church will not marry gays. You ok with that? Do you think they should be forced to, even though it’s against their beliefs? So “You” (that the royal use of You, meaning You the movement) don’t want to force the Catholic Church to “accept” gays? Go talk to the Catholic Charities in Boston that would not provide adoption services to gay couples because it’s against their beliefs. I don’t recall if they are still active in adoptions in Mass or if they chose to shut down. Oh, they would refer the couples to other agencies that would provide the service, so don’t argue “discrimination”. It’s like going to a Ford dealer and wanting a Chevy.
    Heterosexuals do not have the ability to marry whomever they want; I can’t marry my sister.
    You want respect and tolerance? That’s a two way street buddy, you give what you get; was/is Miss California being shown any for her opinion?

  • Putney

    What religious organizations do with same-sex marriage is their business, not mine. The Catholic adoption agency was accepting tax money – it was not privately funded – that is how they got into trouble. As for special rights, what is so special about not wanting to be fired because you are gay or lesbian (duh)?

  • http://www.granitegrok.com doug

    What does gay marriage have to do with being fired? I think there are already laws in place against that.

  • Skip

    Putney, you are also two faced – on an earlier comment (4/29) you said: “Nothing will happen if this becomes law.” Yes it will, as we could be brought up to the NH Human Rights Commission for being “hateful” simply because we disagree with the gay agenda and believe it is morally wrong. It has happened in other states – it will happen here.

  • Putney

    Nothing will happen, Skip. Period.

  • Chairm

    Putney is wrong about Catholic Charities.
    They recieved funding from the state’s NHS that amounted to about 3% of the budget of Catholic Charities. The funding was to maximize their programs for special-needs adoptions. They were the for foremost adoption agency in the state of Massachusetts. Pushing them out of adoptions has served not one child in need there.
    At issue was the license to provide adoption services. That was going to be denied unless the anti-Catholic politics were imposed on the Catholic agencies. That’s the real issue, not funding.
    Catholics provide far more than donations and their time when they work through Catholic Charities. They are not pawns of the state but they do exercise their religious beliefs — indeed they practice their religion — in this nongovernmental service to the people of the state.
    SSM proponents have several axiomatic beliefs that came into full force in the immediate aftermath of the imposition of SSM in Massachusetts.
    First and foremost, disagreement is bigotry and anyone who disgrees is beyond the pale and must be forced to submit or to be ostracized, marginalized, and virtually criminalized.
    Another is that Government owns civil society, which is contrary to the truth that the People have a government not the other way around.
    The SSM campaign stands for the gutting the meaning of the most pro-child social institution we have — marriage. So it should not surprise that it would also directly attack, in the name of gay identity politics, the adoption services provided by the single most significant adoption agencies in the entire state.
    So, Putney, the trouble was started by the assertion of supremacy in the name of identity politics — of the gaycentric variety. It began with the attack on marriage and was followed up with an attack on those who most steadfastly disagree with the SSM campaign. It was about licensing adoption agencies, not about funding, and it was about the gay activists claiming that Government owned civil society — and acting as if citizens had become subjects of the State.
    Your endorsement of the goal of pressing anti-Catholic policies on Catholic agencies is an admission of the core meaning of the SSM campaign: it is to press identity politics into the law and into social policy and, yes, into the culture; it is about innoculating gay identity politics from oppositon and open dissent. It is not democratic but it is contrary to the republican constitutional form of governance that empowers The People and moderates the power-grabs of factions such as those who assert the surpemacy of gay identity politics.

  • Putney

    The group was getting public social services funding in providing adoptions, and a policy of forbidding qualified same-sex couples from adopting ran afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination and adoption laws, not the policy toward gay marriage.

  • Chairm

    False again. Your anti-Catholic bigotry is on display. Even if they accepted nofunding their license was at stake. Forcing anti-Catholic policies on Catholic agencies was not the previous policy of the legislature. That changed in the aftermath of the imposition of SSM. The gay lobby made adoption a political football. It put gay identity politics above the chldren in need. It put that above freedom of conscience. There are agencies that specialize in so-called “gay adoption”. Adoption agencies are entitled to have their own focus. Catholic Charities did not contravene public policy standards. They used a higher standard and did not go below government standards. They were qualified for the license and could have continued without government funding. This is just another example of how the assertion of supremacy for gay identity politics has been played out in Massachusetts.

Previous post:

Next post:


Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.