Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Concord – Gov. John Lynch said he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it does not change before it gets to his desk.

He said his main concern is that the bill, HB 436, and a companion bill don’t provide enough legal protection for religious groups or institutions opposed to the concept.

He has provided legislative leaders with wording that will satisfy him and is leaving it to the House and Senate to move next.

“If the Legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the Legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it. We can and we must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.”

Lynch said he modeled his suggestions based on same-sex marriage laws that are in place in Vermont and Connecticut. He said the Legislature has time to act before the end of this session in June.

“The ball is in their court at this point,” Lynch said in a session with reporters.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?hea ... f29cb91d7b

UNHWildCats wrote:Concord – Gov. John Lynch said he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it does not change before it gets to his desk.

He said his main concern is that the bill, HB 436, and a companion bill don’t provide enough legal protection for religious groups or institutions opposed to the concept.

He has provided legislative leaders with wording that will satisfy him and is leaving it to the House and Senate to move next.

“If the Legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the Legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it. We can and we must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.”

Lynch said he modeled his suggestions based on same-sex marriage laws that are in place in Vermont and Connecticut. He said the Legislature has time to act before the end of this session in June.

“The ball is in their court at this point,” Lynch said in a session with reporters.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?hea ... f29cb91d7b

if they don't change it, it won't pass Constitutional muster.

Lynch is looking out for marriage equality proponents whether they realize it or not.

Nothing wrong with handeling the whole matter with respect across the board.

I have no problem with what Lynch did today. I have no issues with giving protections to churches.

I would have a problem if his wording protects city and town clerks from refusing to issues marriage licenses and use religious beliefs as reasoning, some opponents of the bill have been asking for that...

That said, I have no idea of the wording Lynch passed on to the legislature to add to the bill.

UNHWildCats wrote:I have no problem with what Lynch did today. I have no issues with giving protections to churches.

I would have a problem if his wording protects city and town clerks from refusing to issues marriage licenses and use religious beliefs as reasoning, some opponents of the bill have been asking for that...

That said, I have no idea of the wording Lynch passed on to the legislature to add to the bill.

fair. a government official needs to do their job and if they have a "serious moral objection" to what their job entails... time to find a new job. impeding a religion freely exercising is another matter entirely.