daniel

I grew up in a small town in central N.H., and I remember at my grade school the most popular insult on and off the playground, by a landslide, was "faggot."  I can’t look at this bill as a sweeping change to the mentalities of many people in the state, but that it has made it so far though the state gov’t – albeit narrowly – gives me some hope.

As I understand, the bill is only moving forward because of an amendment made to it:

The amendment distinguished between "civil marriage" and weddings sanctioned by religious groups, spelling out that the state would not force those groups to marry same-sex couples. It also clarified that the bill would not eliminate the option to select "husband" or "wife" when applying for a marriage license, even as it would add the gender-neutral term "spouse."

The Senate version "recognizes the sanctity of religious marriages and the diversity of beliefs in our culture" while also addressing a form of state discrimination, Senate President Sylvia Larsen said in an interview after the vote.

Still sounds pretty discriminatory to me, although if the full privileges and benefits of a hetero marriage are applicable after a service by a Justice of the Peace, that doesn’t seem like a bad thing.  If someone wanted a religious service they could always call Rev. Gene Robinson <3<3<3.  Is this a different standard than in Vermont or Massachusetts or other states?

Any readers living in NH ...