McChurch - Fear of Civil Unions in New Hampshire

(When an elected official takes the oath of office, he/she swears to uphold the Constitution of both the State in which the office is held and that of the United States…Marriage is a sacrament of the church…Because the State calls it “marriage” does not equate its purpose or its outcome to that envisioned by religion… For an elected official to oppose any law that provides equity to all citizens regardless of their race, creed or color is a violation of their constitutional oath…Our religious convictions on marriage, divorce, abortion or homosexuality are immaterial in those areas where the Supreme Court has interpreted the law…

The Christian Right has long had a history of opposing human rights on the grounds of religious principles, suggesting that they seek to overturn the Constitutional guarantees of freedom from oppression…The standard for morality and ethics within the church and the freedom to hold different standards within different churches is what makes America great…Those freedoms will be placed in jeopardy if McChurch continues to insist on imposing its narrow beliefs on our nation while enjoying tax-exempt status…

Stan Moody, author of “Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship” and “McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry.”)

Strong feelings on civil unions

By Tom Fahey - New Hampshire Union Leader
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - Web Link

Concord – The civil unions bill that passed the New Hampshire House last week sparked more than four hours of public testimony yesterday in the Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard from church leaders, legislators, parents and individuals on both sides of the issue. The hearing at the State House attracted more than 200 people.

Some who criticized the bill said it is a gay marriage bill in disguise, because it would recognize as a civil union a marriage legally performed in any other state. They urged the state to return to its conservative roots and reject the bill, HB 437.

Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth, prime sponsor of the bill, defended the bill, saying, "I think it's good for society. It's good for people." Reading from the bill's text, he said it is meant to "delineate the rights, obligation and responsibilities of parties entering a civil union ..."

Diane Murphy Quinlan, chancellor for the Diocese of Manchester, urged rejection of the bill.

"Two persons of the same gender, no matter how loving and nurturing their relationship may be, cannot fulfill the responsibilities or the obligations of a husband and wife," she said.

Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson supported the bill.

"It's a matter of being simply and equally fair to all of our citizens," said Robinson, who is gay. He said the bill will not require clergy in any church to perform or recognize a civil union ceremony.

"It has nothing to do with religious bodies and their affirmation or rejection of such unions in the civil realm," he said.

New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont have passed civil unions laws and California has a similar law. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004.

Rep. Eileen Ehlers, D-Hooksett, a family psychotherapist, said civil unions have not disrupted the social fabric in other states.

"For all the fear-mongering, panic and outrage, life goes on," she said.

The House vote of 243-129 sent HB 437 to the Senate, where it stands a strong chance of passing. Sen. Joseph Foster, D-Nashua, said he expects the committee to vote on the bill tomorrow. If it passes, it could come before the entire Senate next Wednesday.

Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage, but has not said how he views the civil unions bill, only that he is concerned that it work well with other areas of state law.

The list of those who signed up to speak on the bill ran roughly 2-to-1 against it, 211 to 94. Senators said they have been sent hundreds of e-mails that are about evenly divided. The committee adjourned after 4.5 hours without hearing everyone.

Bill supporters yesterday pointed to a February survey that showed 74 percent who responded to a University of New Hampshire poll said they would not be bothered by civil marriages, with 61 percent supporting the idea.

"Had the survey focused on civil unions, the politically safer ground in HB 437, the results would undoubtedly have indicated even higher levels of support," said Dawn Touzin, chair of the state Freedom to Marry Coalition.

Former state senator Gary Francoeur of Hudson was one of many witnesses who cited their religious beliefs as a basis for opposing the bill. He became emotional as he described the pain he feels because one of his four children is gay, a lifestyle he said she has chosen.

"This issue has been settled by God thousands of times," as shown in the Bible, he said. "If this lifestyle was a sin then, then it is a sin today."

Rob Eifler of Chichester opposed the bill, saying: "This is not the type of family structure to teach or promote to our children and future generations," he said.

But the Rev. Leanne Tigert of Concord said the bill, "is not just about civil rights, but about social legitimacy for our children." Gay couples have to get legal documents to visit partners in the hospital, or to claim their bodies when they die, she said.

"Not many people know about all the significant details that profoundly affect our lives," she said.

Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, argued that, "The bottom line is it's marriage and it's being pushed down people's throats."

Karen Testerman, executive director for conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, criticized the Senate for speeding ahead with the bill.

"To 'fast track' legislation on an issue as contentious as civil unions, is a sneaky and irresponsible attempt on the part of the Democratically controlled legislature to bypass the will of the people," she said.