...Forcing clergy to officiate at gay weddings is not an issue, as informed advocates on both sides know. Certainly forcing them to do so "in violation of their [constitutional] right to free exercise of religion" has never been on the table. This provision, on its face, restates protection already guaranteed in the state and federal constitutions. It might, I suppose, be interpreted to exempt religious objectors from the otherwise neutral requirement to officiate at any weddings recognized under state law, which might not be an unconstitutional imposition under Employment Div. v. Smith.

But even if it accomplishes that, the provision is narrower than the religious-liberty protection included in Connecticut's SSM bill last week and much narrower than that proposed last week by five prominent religious-liberty advocates. Whether any additional protection is really needed in an SSM bill, as opposed to state and federal antidiscrimination laws, is a separate question.

Labels: gay marriage, New Hampshire, religious liberty

VOTE

<< Home