More Equal than Others
With Iowa, Maine, and Connecticut joining the ranks of Massachusetts in recent weeks saying gay couples should enjoy all of the legal benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples, other state legislatures show they want to follow suit. There is one state in particular, New Hampshire, that triggered the memory of an argument I made in an essay about five years ago.
The governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, recently vetoed a bill passed by the state's legislature calling for Marriage Equity for gay couples (civil unions are legal for gay couples in New Hampshire). He did so because he felt the bill, as passed by the New Hampshire legislature, did not do enough to protect the significance marriage has in religious institutions. According to Governor Lynch, "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." He continued in his statement arguing, "[T]he role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony."
In a seemingly preemptive response to Governor Lynch's argument, I wrote this five years ago in an essay arguing against a proposed "Marriage Amendment" to the United States Constitution:
Most people would say if asked, that marriage is a religious sacrament. However, state governments must recognize all marriages regardless who performed the ceremony: priest, rabbi, cleric, minister, justice, or Elvis impersonator. Considering that state governments recognize unions between men and women, any state choosing to recognize same sex unions in the same vein should do so as well.
Lynch believes calling gay marriage what it is, rather than the euphemistic civil union, would cause discomfort among some in ecclesiastical circles. It does not obscure the fact that the secular state government needs to recognize the religious ceremony many people perform to show their commitment. People can feel free to have their spiritual advisor join them in holy matrimony if they choose to but they will not enjoy the legal benefits of "spouse" if the state did not approve.
If people who claim to be religious (you know who you are) did get married in their church/synagogue/temple but failed to get state issued marriage licenses, they would get a taste of what committed gay couples go through in most of the country.
The governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, recently vetoed a bill passed by the state's legislature calling for Marriage Equity for gay couples (civil unions are legal for gay couples in New Hampshire). He did so because he felt the bill, as passed by the New Hampshire legislature, did not do enough to protect the significance marriage has in religious institutions. According to Governor Lynch, "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." He continued in his statement arguing, "[T]he role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony."
In a seemingly preemptive response to Governor Lynch's argument, I wrote this five years ago in an essay arguing against a proposed "Marriage Amendment" to the United States Constitution:
Most people would say if asked, that marriage is a religious sacrament. However, state governments must recognize all marriages regardless who performed the ceremony: priest, rabbi, cleric, minister, justice, or Elvis impersonator. Considering that state governments recognize unions between men and women, any state choosing to recognize same sex unions in the same vein should do so as well.
Lynch believes calling gay marriage what it is, rather than the euphemistic civil union, would cause discomfort among some in ecclesiastical circles. It does not obscure the fact that the secular state government needs to recognize the religious ceremony many people perform to show their commitment. People can feel free to have their spiritual advisor join them in holy matrimony if they choose to but they will not enjoy the legal benefits of "spouse" if the state did not approve.
If people who claim to be religious (you know who you are) did get married in their church/synagogue/temple but failed to get state issued marriage licenses, they would get a taste of what committed gay couples go through in most of the country.
Comments