The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on May 20, 2009, 03:51:35 PM
-
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Wed May-20-09 04:19 PM
Original message
N.H. lawmakers reject gay-marriage bill
Source: MSNBC
MANCHESTER, N.H. - New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.
The Democratic-controlled House voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after the Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines. An earlier version of the bill passed the state's House on March 26.
Both chambers had been asked to approve compromise language that would have given religious institutions opposed to gay marriage legal protections, including the right to decline to marry same-sex couples.
Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30851193 /
PHUCK!!!!!!!!!
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Wed May-20-09 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would that be because the 'right to decline' language
violated the establishment clause, giving special consideration to religion?
It was a silly concession - because the state has no authority to force a religion to marry anyone in the first place - Their right to refuse is already enshrined in the establishment clause. If the state specifically grants a right to refuse, that tacitly says it can grant the right to enforce. The establishment clause says the state has no say in it one way or the other - just as the religion has no say in who the state permits to marry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Wed May-20-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Probably. Last I heard it was clear sailing before that language got added.
The only roadblock was the governor, and it could become law with or without his signature, since NH doesn't have a "pocket veto."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
ComtesseDeSpair (449 posts) Wed May-20-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Personally...
I think that religious institutions should be removed from marriage. It should be a legal issue anyway. It's nothing to do with religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
keepCAblue (1000+ posts) Wed May-20-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. A comment on towleroad.com disputes this...says bill not dead, just gov's demand for language change
#
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 20, 2009 4:15:34 PM
#
Marriage has NOT failed in NH. The House voted to negotiate the changes with the Senate (from the AP):
CONCORD, N.H.—A divided New Hampshire House has refused to go along with changes the governor demanded to make his state the sixth to allow gay marriage. Instead, it voted to further negotiate with the Senate.
The Senate passed the changes 14-10 Wednesday, but the House failed to agree later in the day by a vote of 188-186. Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.
Gov. John Lynch said last week he wouldn't sign the legislation without language to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays.
Gays R Not Happy :) (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3886119)
That's the whole bonfire so far, but give it time.
-
DUmmie says, "I think that religious institutions should be removed from marriage. It should be a legal issue anyway. It's nothing to do with religion."
Wonder if the DUmmie would agree with me on this point then, "Charity (welfare)belongs in the church not in the hands of government. It should be a personal choice anyway. It has nothing to do with government."
-
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Wed May-20-09 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would that be because the 'right to decline' language
violated the establishment clause, giving special consideration to religion?
It was a silly concession - because the state has no authority to force a religion to marry anyone in the first place - Their right to refuse is already enshrined in the establishment clause. If the state specifically grants a right to refuse, that tacitly says it can grant the right to enforce. The establishment clause says the state has no say in it one way or the other - just as the religion has no say in who the state permits to marry.
If what you say is true, and it never is, then why would the governor be insisting churches be protected from lawsuits (which Satan's Fags are chomping at the bits to file)?
-
ComtesseDeSpair (449 posts) Wed May-20-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Personally...
I think that religious institutions should be removed from marriage. It should be a legal issue anyway. It's nothing to do with religion.
You're kiddin' right? If it is not religious then how in the hell does it exist?
-
You're kiddin' right? If it is not religious then how in the hell does it exist?
DUmmies always get it backwards. Teh gubmint should be removed from marriage.
-
And NH retains some sembalance of sanity--at least for now.
-
And NH retains some sembalance of sanity--at least for now.
I doubt for very long. After all it is New England, right?
-
You're kiddin' right? If it is not religious then how in the hell does it exist?
In Europe it came about as a business arrangement. To the Greeks and Romans, marriage didn't have much to do with religion. It was a means to combine families and business. The christian church didn't really become involved in marriage until the Renaissance. In 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would only be deemed legal in the churches eyes if it was officiated by a Priest. Before that, there really was no set in stone precedent that honestly tied a priest into officiating a ceremony.
-
In Europe it came about as a business arrangement. To the Greeks and Romans, marriage didn't have much to do with religion. It was a means to combine families and business. The christian church didn't really become involved in marriage until the Renaissance. In 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would only be deemed legal in the churches eyes if it was officiated by a Priest. Before that, there really was no set in stone precedent that honestly tied a priest into officiating a ceremony.
It might be a bit older than that:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24.
-
It might be a bit older than that:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24.
Yes indeedy! God made marriage. Man didn't not come up with it by committee.
-
In Europe it came about as a business arrangement. To the Greeks and Romans, marriage didn't have much to do with religion. It was a means to combine families and business. The christian church didn't really become involved in marriage until the Renaissance. In 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would only be deemed legal in the churches eyes if it was officiated by a Priest. Before that, there really was no set in stone precedent that honestly tied a priest into officiating a ceremony.
Ah, still, nowadays it is definitely a religious ceremony. That's why they call them VOWS!
-
Ah, still, nowadays it is definitely a religious ceremony. That's why they call them VOWS!
When my wife and I where married, it was officiated by my Step Mom who was a notary (legal in Florida) in a park under a large weeping willow tree. When we renewed our vows, it was by the Captain of the S.S. Badger, onboard the S.S. City of Milwaukee.
For some it's good and all to have it done by a priest, in a church. For others, religion takes no part in it.
-
When my wife and I where married, it was officiated by my Step Mom who was a notary (legal in Florida) in a park under a large weeping willow tree. When we renewed our vows, it was by the Captain of the S.S. Badger, onboard the S.S. City of Milwaukee.
For some it's good and all to have it done by a priest, in a church. For others, religion takes no part in it.
No matter who performs the ceremony, it is still spiritiual between the two of you. How is that not reliigous? I don't care what religion you are, it is still a spiritual bond.