Thursday, May 21, 2009

live free or die

(Please don't let this distract you from commenting on the previous post if you haven't yet!)

“I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.
“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.
“Throughout history, our society’s views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.
“That is what I believe we must do today. "

~Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire

Governor Lynch proposed language in the same-sex marriage legislation that would protect religious liberty. He says he will veto any legislation that does not contain such language. Thank you, Governor Lynch, for your efforts to protect religious rights.


Ave said...

I am moving to New Hampshire. Not really, but I have new respect. If only old Baldacci were such a great American.

Dave Thurston said...

Umm. I don't understand. I've read the quote at least three times . . . and I still don't understand.

It seems like the issue is "who am I to judge what others do" to which I agree. But I can't tell which side the politician came down on and (sorry Ms. Calandria) I can't tell for sure what side you came down on.

If it as simple as "who am I to judge", kudos to all.

Calandria said...

I agree with Governor Lynch that the legalization of gay marriage presents a threat to religious rights. If there is going to be gay marriage, than religious liberty also needs to be strengthened and protected.

Brenda said...

I wonder if it really is a threat to religious rights? I wonder if the religious right is acting on fear that may be a little overexaggerated. I don't know, I need to read up more about the potential worries. I know the church position is more along the lines of yours but I personally follow more along the lines of Dave's thinking. I do still want my freedom to believe as I wish and not to have govt tell my private religion what it can and can not do in "fairness to everyone". But if our country gets to that, then it really won't be the America I want to be in.

Dave Thurston said...

Hey Calandria - I just read your follow up post, thanks for clarifying - what a great topic.

When I reread my comment, I had the feeling of "ugh" - using the "Ms." seemed a bit pompous. I didn't mean it to, I frequently write Ms., Miss, or Mr. in front of the first names of people as a sign of respect (I feel weird assuming that I can easily call people by their first name). So, that is my long-winded, true apology.

What a great topic that you've opened. I agree that your religious rights are important to protect - I don't want to live where one is judged (or even injured) for the faith one follows.

I also agree that the hug of a lover is one of the greatest gifts that our Maker has given us.

And finally, I feel that God is pretty smart. . . and he is ok my constant questions of His existence and master plan. In the same light, I feel that He also understands that Love must trump local, relatively brief rules that his creations will impose upon one another.

Oh and that his Word is for each of us to interpret for ourselves directly from Him - He likes talking directly with us.

Thanks for the topic - your blog entry is causing me to think, and ponder, and consider (Which ironically, is part of His masterplan) and I quite like that.

Anonymous said...

I've always been an avid supporter for separation of church and state. After living in a country where it is not so separate I am even more avid for separation. If it was strictly a civil service for EVERYONE we wouldn't be having this discussion.

A lot of these marriage rights bills bring church and state more closely together. If people really want to get married they don’t care if its in a church or not so why put that in a bill?