TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (with attached note to Republicans)

(The first of two emails to Governor Lynch of New Hampshire. Unfortunately the email field for the governor limits each comment to 800 characters, including spaces. The emails printed here are rounded out more fully, though not completely, for clarity.)

Dear Governor Lynch,

HB 436 -- or the same-sex marriage bill -- is just bad legislation. It should be rejected in large part because it is poorly crafted. That is not your fault; you should veto it without remorse.

If same-sex marriage is a civil right, how can a bill conferring that right also include an exemption (HB 457:37) for those religious who do not wish to solemnize and confer such a right in their churches? Can anyone imagine a religious leader being given essentially a "conscientious objector exemption" because his/her church has a religious issue serving communion to African Americans?

In other words, if same-sex marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, no one with the authority to confer and solemnize that right should be LEGALLY permitted NOT to confer that right.

It is truly astonishing that those legislators who have been most vocal about same-sex marriage being a civil right undermine their own argument by granting exemptions to people who don't believe it to be a right.

Governor Lynch, please veto HB 436. It is fraught with difficulties, legal AND religious. Signing it is to open a veritable Pandora's box. And please, don't accept the demonstrably false assertion that HB 436 won't be bad for the people of New Hampshire. It will be bad precisely because it contains a massive legal and religious contradiction that will only cause confusion, resentment, and bitterness. This is essentially divisive and not unitive legislation. It deserves your complete rejection.

Blessings to you in your decision. Follow logic and you will not make a mistake

PART TWO (the second of two emails to Governor Lynch)†

I need to point out that HB 436 also includes language that is ridiculously vague. I've already pointed out the problem with what could be called the "conscientious objector clause." But there is also a problem with the language in the bill listing who CANNOT marry, e.g. a man cannot marry his cousin, etc.

For example, what if the cousin is an adopted child, or the man's uncle or aunt was adopted, or a half-sibling to the man's biological parent? What if the man is adopted himself? And why is it illegal for a man to "marry" his cousin if the cousin is a gay male? There is no possibility of incest-related birth defects affecting their offspring if it is impossible for two men to procreate.

Because the law is poorly written, it cannot help us discern a clear path through these more complex marital arrangements.

What is clearly evident is that HB436 actually will create a NEW category of marital relations that ONLY gays and lesbians can enjoy. If we believe that a man should not marry his female cousin or a woman should not marry her male cousin because of the threat their shared DNA poses to potential offspring, then it follows that since two male or female homosexuals CANNOT procreate, they are legally permitted to marry each other if they are indeed cousins (and uncles and aunts). Or is there some arbitrary reason gays and lesbians cannot marry their same-sex cousins? What is that reason? Is it just about fairness?

Hence, since there is no legal or biological reason why two same-sex cousins (or other relations) cannot marry (and HB 436 says nothing about same-sex aunts and uncles who are adopted or only half-uncles/aunts), HB 436 has either imposed an arbitrary divide or it has opened the door to conferring legally protected special marital rights to gay cousins because its language is pathetically vague. If the latter, then we have not solved the marriage equality issue if gays and lesbians can marry their same-sex cousins and heterosexuals cannot marry their opposite-sex cousins.

HB 436 is rife with legal problems. Reject it.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

______________________

New Hampshire's HB 436 is another sad example of the rather problematic political model of LEGISLATE NOW, THINK LATER.º

_______________________

A NOTE TO REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVESª

It is rather common to think that gay marriage has little to do with anything important. All kinds of people sigh that there seem to be more important things to worry about than gay marriage, and they may be right. But it should be noted that if ANYONE were to suggest that all Americans should set aside gay marriage for now so the MORE IMPORTANT things can be addressed, pro-gay marriage activists would scream to high heaven. It is a lie that gay marriage isn't important; it is THE most important thing, at least to gay activists who constantly ask Americans to worry about all those other MORE IMPORTANT things.

If you are a Republican solely because you would like to see government wastefulness and services reduced; if you are a Republican solely because you want lower taxes, a more vibrant free-market economy, and less government intrusion on your personal (and your business's) income, then you need to consider two things.

First, if the extent of your political activism is solely about money, spending, taxes, economics; if this is your constant concern, you appear, at least to your opponents, as a person fixated on yourself. In other words, you come across as greedy, avaricious, materialistic, selfish. And if economics, private and public, are your sole political concern, you MIGHT deserve to be called a heartless materialist.

Second, if you as a fiscally-minded Republican would broaden your mind, you would see that gay marriage IS a threat to your wealth, your good fortune or the rewards you've enjoyed as a result of your hard work. Why? Because the spirit of egalitarianism that is behind gay marriage is the same spirit behind higher taxation and expanding distributive government. Gay marriage is about what YOU have that "they" don't have -- unfair! unjust! unequal! -- just like the death or estate tax is about what YOU have that they don't have. It's unfair that you can send your kids to a school of your choice. It's unjust that you can leave your estate to your children in order to give them an advantage. It's unfair that you can afford health care when others can't (or that you can afford "better" health care). It's a gross inequality that you can have a bigger share and not be forced to "give back" your "fair share." (Even abortion rights are of the same spirit: it is not fair that a woman should be forced to bear the result of the sex act when the man does not.)

Alas, if you as a Republican neither see nor care to see this connection, then you should rethink your allegiance to the Republican Party. Sorry. For the GOP is really not about egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism: the GOP really believes that there are ontological differences between people, things, circumstances. The GOP really believes that FORCING charity, beneficence and equality, all by law, is to deny freedom. The GOP really believes that competition is OK, that not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. The GOP really believes in the possibility and the reality of gaining a just advantage over others and passing that advantage -- in accord with EVOLUTION -- to one's offspring. The GOP really believes that envy politics as embodied in legislative "reforms" such as reparations, or gay marriage, or increased taxation on the rich or corporations, is detrimental to the health not only of the individual but the collective as well.

In short, the GOP recognizes that where egalitarianism reigns, freedom MUST DIE. What are the most egalitarian systems in the world? Prisons, gulags, concentration camps -- where all men are equal.

Let me put it this way. When the founders of our country (I note Thomas Jefferson in the following clause) wrote that "All men are created equal," what was NOT written is that "All men ARE EQUAL." Nor was it written that "All men must be MADE EQUAL." No, the brilliance of Jefferson is that he saw that all are CREATED equal, by "nature's God." Naked is each of us born, and naked we shall die (from dust to dust). But nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable. SAMENESS and EQUALITY are anathema to survival; natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is only possible where there are inequalities.

In closing I note that Republicans fixated solely on moral issues are vulnerable to accusations that they only care about controlling what occurs in America's bedrooms. Fair enough; some people are overly fixated on minding others' private lives. But the fact is that the morality of egalitarianism, so to speak, does not stop in the bedroom or the boardroom. It is a pervasive morality. Once Americans allow egalitarians to codify the irrational assertion that two gay men in matrimony EQUALS a man and a woman; once Americans allow egalitarians to insist that it is unfair that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2+2, America has allowed envy and the irrational to gain a foothold. If the irrational is allowed to redefine what the demonstrable building block of all society is; if the envious are allowed to define marriage (and equality and fairness), then the irrational will rule throughout society, culture and government.

Stand against envy and the irrational. Please.


©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†Added at 4:53 pm EST
º Added at 5:53 pm EST
ª Added at 11:03 EST, May 10