I guess if it gets the job done, it gets the job done. But as Evan Dawson of Channel 13 reports in their blog, New Hampshire’s governor accepted the new legalization of gay marriage only after an “exemption” was made, allowing churches to refuse to perform the ceremony if they believe it’s contrary to their faith.
So, this was a concern? Have there been cases of Catholic churches forced to perform brisses? Are they required to have a liquor license for the holy water((Uh, that would be “wine,” not “water.” Though I suppose they’re pretty much interchangeable for JC. . . )) in some states? Are there a lot of traditional Greek Orthodoxy ceremonies being performed – under threat of state sanction – in Jewish temples?
But its the kind of silliness which serves as a proxy for explicit homophobia, I suppose. And as I said before, if clinging to these types of surrogate arguments helps people let go of their ignorance, we should probably just let it go. Evan’s reporting suggests that perhaps adding such language – which doesn’t really change the law in any realistic way – might just push the bill in New York over the top, based on polls in California.
My concern is that adding such language is inherently dishonest and may inadvertently add new interpretative possibilities.
4 replies on “NH Gay Marriage: the Pinnacle of Silliness”
Tom,
Your concerns are shared by a lot of people I’ve spoken with recently. Essentially: churches can choose not to perform marriage ceremonies already. However, some on the right are concerned that government is going to attempt to force churches to perform marriages or shut them down. This language placates those concerns, even if it effectively changes nothing.
@Evan ~ so I guess the question becomes: which is more important? The passage of the law or fidelity to the truth? This would hardly be the first time that fidelity to the truth has taken a back seat to getting things done. After all, that’s sometimes what democracy is all about: compromise.
Or maybe that’s not the question at all, but rather how the exemption effects the legal and social issues by itself. The result of this bill in NH may well be an active push to pressure churches to ban gay marriage. It puts the onus on churches and therefore the political and social pressure on the churches. If we’re not careful, socio-political assassinations inside of churches will soon be the norm – not a conveniently rare “aberration” – of hard-right paramilitary tactics. That might be a bit over-anxious, but it’s not completely outside the bounds.
The silliness is the legislation itself, because it’s just another entitlement where gays are using their sexual preference to create their victimhood for the excuse to extort more money from the government. It has little to do with rights.
Just more socialism. Capitalist gays do not fall for this and think it is not good.
No one cares about ‘homophobia’ – no one is forcing them to have sex with the same gender person, so there is no such thing as homophobia.
@NH ~ Golly! I wish I knew where to begin disputing this ridiculous argument. Clearly, though, someone cares about homophobia. That much is pretty basic.
If gay marriage is socialism does this not also make marriage in general a form of socialism? Or is neither socialism? Not sure you thought this argument through carefully. Perhaps next time you aught to write it down first…