Marriage Equality Is About The Way We Treat One Another As Americans
Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:51AM House Bill 436, which would provide full marriage equality, with the word, for our gay and lesbian friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors, took a step toward approval by surviving on a tie vote during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee this week.
The bill earned a 10-10 tie vote in the Committee, which means that it will go to the House floor next week "without recommendation." In other words, it stands a chance of passage. I'm sponsoring HB 436 with Reps. Paul McEachern of Portsmouth, Barbara Richardson of Richmond , and Ed Butler of Harts Location.
I know a lot of people don't quite understand why "marriage" is so important for our tens of thousands gay and lesbian residents. I think it's about being treated equally under the law, and being respected as equals under our laws.
Our gay and lesbian citizens have been Americans since this became a country. They fought in its wars. The built businesses. They've been loyal to our nation. Yet, because they are gay, they haven't had fundamental rights until recently. It wasn't until 1997 that here in New Hampshire we passed legislation protecting gays and lesbians in areas of employment, services, and housing. Even today, only 22 states have such protective laws. In most of this country, one can still be fired just for being gay.
Nothing is more important than the way we treat one another. One's sexual identity should not be cause for discrimination, but it is. If two people of the same gender fall in love and want to share that love and their caring for one another, they can in New Hampshire get a "Civil Union." I'm happy to have successfully worked to pass our Civil Union Law in 2007.
I sponsored that bill with the late State Representative Dana Hilliard of Somersworth. It wasn't an easy task, but with the work of hundreds and thousands of others, we succeeded in giving the rights under our state laws which are otherwise given to differently-gendered couples as "marriage" to our gay and lesbian residents as "Civil Unions." Currently there are 646 Civil Unions in New Hampshire, all celebrated since the law became effective on January 1, 2008.
But are Civil Unions equal? Of course not. Which heterosexual couple in our state would trade their "marriage" for a "Civil Union?" Companies and corporations can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians who have Civil Unions if, in their contract, they give equality only to a "married spouse." And no federal equality is given to gays and lesbians with Civil Unions. Civil Unions are separate and unequal.
In New Hampshire, our marriages are civil. A man and a woman go to city or town hall, pay $40.00, and get a license. The couple fills out a form, and then they may be legally married. IF they wish, they can go through the marriage process by the procedure that their Church has set up for marriages, and then their marriage can be recognized by their personal religion. I would always defend the right of Churches and religions to continue to be able to make their own procedures, and to allow only ceremonies on their private property which they wish.
House Bill 436 doesn't affect religious marriages at all, not one bit. It just allows a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to be able to go to their town or city hall and get a marriage license.
America is strong because Americans have long fought for freedom. But freedom also means the right for equal treatment under our laws. If we're to become even a stronger nation in an unpredictable world in the decades to come -- in a Century that has unforeseen dangers and threats in years to come -- we have to find ways to treat ALL Americans fairly and equally. Marriage equality is an important step toward that goal.
A civilization is known by the way it treats its people, and equality is something that cannot forever be denied.
Reader Comments (17)
God bless.
Jim, I'm glad you made a point of stating this as it is the key concern I have. Personally I could care less what two consenting adults view themselves as. If you and another man would like to call yourself a married couple, fine by me. But if you file a lawsuit against my church because they refuse to perform a same sex marriage, well now you've created a problem that I cannot support you in.
There is also the question of abuse, perhaps two business partners in legal trouble getting "married" to be able to use spouse privileges in being able to avoid being forced to testify against one another. But I think that's a debate in and of itself and I don't see that as reason to bar those who do not abuse the system. We've already got far too many laws that are created as the result of a few that take freedoms away from many others who actually are responsible (ironically many that you yourself have supported).
Richard, you make good points -- those two business partners playing games with the system by "getting married" could, of course, be a man and a woman. And since Churches are private property, and since religious groups can determine their own standards for membership and acceptance, there cannot be a successful law suit to insist a Church recognize a same-gendered marriage or allow one to be held on its property. Besides, this law specifically restates religious independence, in case that's not clear enough by the Constitution.
'The homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.....To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games....At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing...then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won"'
You might want to go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts to look at some stats on homosexuals as you translate Jim's real goals.
So I ask you, Dave -- what is it about me that makes you want to discriminate? What's YOUR agenda, Dave?
Jim is right. Your agenda is spilling out your eyeballs.
I have no agenda. Only the truth. If that bothers you or your friends, then you need to think more about your life choices. You seem to believe that feelings equal fact. They don't.
So what's the truth? Civil marriage between heterosexuals is sacred? Is that the truth?
"While Rome burns."
And Arthur, don't we have time to talk about issues of discrimination while at the same time we work on the deficit, or should we have the tunnelvision to do only one thing at a time?
You should run for the Legislature, Arthur, so you can do some of the heavy lifting. Maybe I'll vote for you.
Let's Live Free or Die! Prayers for justice tomorrow.
No, it's not.
One man, one woman, nothing else.
I have no problems with civil unions, but apparently this is not good enough in some people's eyes. What I do have a problem with is being labeled homophobic, or a bigot because my views on this subject do not agree with individuals such as Mr. Splaine.
The last time I checked, our Constitution still guaranteed the right of free speech, but I could not find any requirement in it that stated we have to justify our beliefs to those who don't share them.
Indeed, you do have the right to your speech. And that's true even if your speech is wrong. But all indications are that your speech may not be protected for long. Gay rights activists around the world want to demonize and criminalize such speech; to oppose gay marriage will be, in the ideal "gay-is-equal-to-straight" utopia, an act of moral and intellectual, even social, violence.
These folks are not interested in just getting "equal rights." They want to redefine, impose and control. It is THEIR values that count. It is THEIR values that MUST be imposed. It's only "fair." To hell with your values, or your pursuit of happiness. Theirs is all that matters: THEY will tell you what a marriage is and what marriage means. They will tell you about the history of marriage. They will tell you how you must talk about marriage to your children. They will tell you how you must speak about your neighbor and his male "wife." They will tell you what a "family" is. They will tell you how you must speak about gender and gender roles. They will tell you where to go with your moral "slippery slope." They will tell you there are no absolutes, that "things change" (and then they'll impose a new absolute -- that opposing homosexual marriage has been and always will be morally wrong.) They will tell you what "science says" or what "rational people" think; they'll tell you about "open mindedness" and "justice."
"Marriage equality is about the way we treat each other as Americans." No, it isn't.
You ask: Has the sky fallen?
Answer: Yes, it has. It has fallen in the form of the destruction of rational thought. You think gay marriage is rational. But there is nothing rational about gay marriage. The fallen sky is your inability to see the unreasonableness of your position and that you want to impose your irrationality on those who actually like the clarity reason always gives. Those of us who oppose gay marriage do so strictly because we are trying to save the human mind from intellectual anarchy.
To support gay marriage, no matter how unwittingly, is to support the demise of the human mind.
That, I am afraid to say, is what we mean when we say the "sky is falling." Gay marriage is not progress. It's really a regression. Sorry.