Congratulations!

Here in NH, Governor Benson just yesterday signed into law a bill prohibiting the state from recognizing such marriages.I'm all for gay couples having all the same rights as married people (including paying more taxes if both are wage earners), I just wish they'd find another name for gay unions. We could use this name for all civil unions. From a legal standpoint, the word "marriage" would apply to religious ceremonies uniting a couple, while a different word would apply to civil ceremonies.Of course, this gets more complicated if there are some religions that will marry gay couples, and I'll bet there are. But in this case it would probably satisfy states like New Hampshire if the married gay couple also attended a civil ceremony. In other words, states like NH would accept marriage licenses of heterosexual couples signed by ministers, pastors and so forth, and of gay couples signed by justices of the peace. But they wouldn't accept a religious leader's signature on the marriage license of a gay couple.--Percy

I'm trying to remember the details surrounding the marriage license from my own wedding, but it was long enough ago that I've forgotten too much. I don't know if this is accurate, but when we applied for the marriage license, someone told us that once you have the license you're married, that the religious ceremony is a formality. True or not, I think the minister who performed the ceremony signed the certificate. But I wonder if he signed it not as a religious leader, but as a representative of the state? Do ministers, pastors, priests, etc., have to obtain state licenses before they can perform legally recognized marriages?If so, this changes my argument a little because it means that marriage is a construction of the state and not of religion, and the state therefore gets to define what is marriage and what is not. But the state's definition of marriage and religion's definition probably do not agree. Nor should they! And since the definitions are different, it would be nice if there were different words, but I guess we're stuck with marriage for both.So, in order to be considered married by the state, you must have a civil marriage. I think everyone, gay or not, should be entitled to such a marriage. Whether or not you're also married in the eyes of God should be up to each religion.Up here in New Hampshire we apparently believe the civil and religious definitions of marriage should be one and the same.--Percy

To me this seems less a "separate but equal" issue and more one of equal rights. If a woman can have a husband, why can't a man? Denying a man a husband amounts to sex discrimination, doesn't it? That's the spirit! They'll sure be sorry once you're locked away in a concentration camp! --Percy