New Hampshire Legalizes Gay Marriage, Exempts Clergy from Ceremonies: Is this fair?
The New Hampshire legislature and Governor John Lynch have approved a revised same-sex marriage bill. New Hampshire is now the sixth state in the United States to legalize gay marriage.
Governor...
The New Hampshire legislature and Governor John Lynch have approved a revised same-sex marriage bill. New Hampshire is now the sixth state in the United States to legalize gay marriage.
Governor Lynch had long been an advocate of civil unions, but more recently began supporting same-sex marriage, stating that "a separate system is not an equal system."
However, Lynch has also given special privileges to members of the clergy, who are now exempt from having to perform same-sex marriages or provide marriage counseling.
Now that the legalization of gay marriage is sweeping the U.S., should governors take after Lynch and start exempting the clergy from having to perform at gay marriage ceremonies? (more)
Governor Lynch had long been an advocate of civil unions, but more recently began supporting same-sex marriage, stating that "a separate system is not an equal system."
However, Lynch has also given special privileges to members of the clergy, who are now exempt from having to perform same-sex marriages or provide marriage counseling.
Now that the legalization of gay marriage is sweeping the U.S., should governors take after Lynch and start exempting the clergy from having to perform at gay marriage ceremonies? (more)
Top Comment
View thread
-
The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
The state shouldn't force churches to go against their beliefs. They have the right to decide whether or not they want to preform the service. Besides what person would want be married by someone who doesn't accept them.
The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
DUH. 'Nuff said.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
Kudos to New Hampshire. One person's rights end the minute they infringe on the rights of someone else. IN this case, gay couples have the right to marry, but do NOT have the right to infringe on the rights of the clergy - forcing them to do so against their will would be horrible.Good on you, New Hampshire!
I think...
I think the churches have a right 2 say they don't believe in gays being unitedThe clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
It is there choice.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
You cannot force people to acceot the gay agenda!The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
if they dont want toThe clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
I'm sure that the same ppl who don't want to perform same-sex marriages have had other marriages they didn't want to perform in- it may be discrimination, but I'm sure it's not JUST same-sex marriages they discriminate against...The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
I think that churchs shouldnt perform services that they dont agree with. However, if they some how found a paster/minister that would agree to do the service that would be fine. I dont think the goverment should control what the church does, not just because of seperation of church and state, but because a persons beliefes are his own, if a gay couple found a willing pastor to do the ceremony I believe he or she has the right to do soI think...
idkI think...
That clergy should not be forced to do ANY marriages they don't want to do of ANY type. If NH had a system forcing them to do heterosexual marriages up to now--that is VERY strange and wrong. There should not have been a need for this provision of the new law. I'm amazed that NH would be forcing clergy to do anything. Sounds unconstitutional to me.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
I am for LGBT rights, but the establishment/free exercise clauses should obviate the need to ask this question.Tax exemption is where the real questions arise.
The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
What happened to the freedom to obey our conscience? This is what angers me most about the whole issue of same sex marriage --it's not about giving freedom to homosexuals to "marry" but is about forcing everyone else to accept homosexualityhttp://www.whatliberalmedia.c...
Even if you don't believe Alterman from that, it is at least enough evidence that the general acceptance without criticsm of your idea that there's a "iberal, pro-homosexual bias" in "mainstream media" should be dropped.
It should not be too hard for you to find more complete stories covering the more complete situations for those situations. If you have done so, I don't see how you could interpret them the way you do. To me, it appears you are the one ignoring at least half of reality.
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics...
But, yes, as his title suggests, his main idea is that when he looked into it, he could find little MSM bias, especially almost no Liberal bias, probably because most professional newscasters work hard to be balanced. This IS a surprising claim, as the idea that there IS a bias is so widespread and deeply-rooted. OTOH, he said that what bias there was, when looking at all media, was almost entirely Right-wing, like Fox and almost all talk radio. He pointed out (and I have seen this myself) that even some newspeople on MSM seem to buy the "Liberal bias" knock on themselves. He ends up concluding it's a Big Lie thing successfully sold to most everyone by Right-wingers screaming "Bias!" when it's mostly them doing it themselves. As I said, even if you don't believe him, it seems to me that a case for bias needs to be rebuilt in light ... I apologize for the skimpy coverage on the Alterman site of the content of the book. I need to get the book myself, as I only saw him on TV, several years ago on a long C-SPAN segment that seemed to cover his points pretty thoroughly--but I'm sure the book does more. I'm not saying I swallowed his ideas uncritically, but they were VERY interesting and well-made points. I've been wondering if he still feels the same now that MSNBC has gotten stronger.
But, yes, as his title suggests, his main idea is that when he looked into it, he could find little MSM bias, especially almost no Liberal bias, probably because most professional newscasters work hard to be balanced. This IS a surprising claim, as the idea that there IS a bias is so widespread and deeply-rooted. OTOH, he said that what bias there was, when looking at all media, was almost entirely Right-wing, like Fox and almost all talk radio. He pointed out (and I have seen this myself) that even some newspeople on MSM seem to buy the "Liberal bias" knock on themselves. He ends up concluding it's a Big Lie thing successfully sold to most everyone by Right-wingers screaming "Bias!" when it's mostly them doing it themselves. As I said, even if you don't believe him, it seems to me that a case for bias needs to be rebuilt in light of Alterman's arguments. He also touched on the idea that he did see pro-sensationalistic bias for Left and Right stories--meaning the media would push/pump-up excitement for any kind of story, if they thought it would build up ratings.
I did watch CNN a LOT during the campaign and I emphatically did NOT see evidence of them being "in the tank" for Obama. I saw balanced panels of people from both sides interviewed by carefully neutral hosts being polite to both sides. The only show clearly bending one way or the other was the Right-leaning Lou Dobbs show. As the campaign went on, there were more problems for McCain/Palin and so those problems got a lot of airtime (pro-ratings bias?). I doubt I could prove this to you, especially if you are one of those who sees Fox as balanced, but I did personally watch CNN be balanced and critical to either side as appropriate.
That CNN lady at the Tea Pary WAS indeed over-the-top and wrong, but I don't think it is a general problem at CNN.
Thanks for your link. I did read a fair amount of the main page stuff. I'm fairly skeptical. I am impressed that the quotes from various folks seem complete--and most of them (the media insider types) seem to be claiming a mild bias at most. Here are the oppposing thoughts/filters to these ideas I usually am viewing "through":
-For the Right, "balance" seems to mean "actively anti-Left"
-The Right seems to think that professional objectivity in Journalism is impossible--they think the personal beliefs of journalists are ALWAYS reflected in their work. They work hard on proving what the personal politics of journalists are, and assume that automatically means their work is biased. A bias in a story should be noticeable in the story regardless of who wrote it. A story with bias is bad journalism, unless it is labeled as opinion.
-Therefore, I feel that the Right thinks personal biases are ALWAYS present in work because it's how they work themselves, and why they think Right-bias by Right-wing journalists is OK.
Now those are ONLY my opinions, of course. I've thought about them a lot, but they ARE just opinions. (more)
This is because just showing a difference in amount of positive or negative coverage between candidates does not prove bias--there may have been genuine differences.
Now, showing a difference in positivity or negativity between news sources when describing the same thing DOES show bias--but it doesn't show which direction the bias is. That is, perhaps Fox was biasing in favor of Palin, masking genuine problems.
http://www.journalism.org/nod...
Thanks for the link to an interesting article. It has lots of statistics, but does not have any definitions of its measurements (like what it takes to be a "positive", "negative", or "neutral" story), and the writer is quite free with making pronouncements of what their conclusions from the data are, without really saying how they got there. So, it's hard to put a whole lot of weight on it.
But my big problem is that it does not even address the issue I was asking about--that of bias or unfair coverage. It is all about how coverage was split up amongst positive/negative/neutral, but it does not look at fairness of coverage at all. That would be a very hard study to do, it's true--but this one does not even try.
So, this does not show what I'd asked for, "an unfair description of Palin from a Left-wing hard news source". For that matter, it also does not even touch the concept of a Left or Right media source.
I'm not denying that you have a strong impression of bias, just that this article does not prove it.
The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
churches should be able to refuse it. i wouldnt want to get married in a church anyway. There will still be churches that will be happy to do it. Theres still people who have the authority to wed people that would do it.It's also good because it promotes gay marriage. All the people who say it's wrong blah blah blah could leave it alone because they probably wont see it going on in their church anyway...if they're that kind of person.
I think...
no one... the state...the fed... or God(CHURCH) should noy have a say in who anyones heart loves....... love is love!no ... you are wrong...
NOBODY has the right to tell anyone how to live or who to love! let me rephrase that NOBODY or any Supposed Diety ideolgy
GOD loves everyone but Gays.... so unconditional love just became conditional because you said so.... get real with yourself.. and check yourself... i think you need deprogramming....
The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
Well it is still against their religion....I think...
Got me on this one. I can't figure out what to say for this one. ^.^*The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
i love gay marriage! if there in love they sould just go at it! but if we're talking about the Catholic Church its totally against the religion! i'm okay with gay marriage just not in the church. if they really love each other they'll go to court and not care.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
I am completely for gay marriage. I'm also someone who is completely against discrimination of anyone fr anything. But that is forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs in order to do something that they are being forced to do. I'm also against people being forced to go against their religious beliefs (for the most part and to a certain extent). But hey GO NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!!The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
Yay For New Hampshire!! One of the most free states in this country. I am not originally from there but my parents and two of my sisters and their families live there now. My other sister is in CT (2nd state to approve gay marriage). It should be a given that churches can choose who they want to marry and who they don't, since The Constitution already guarantee's their right. I can't complain though, and I don't mind that they included this in the legislation.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
A justice of the peace could just as easily do a ceremony. YAY congrats to my state for doing something great!! I think clergy should decide with their church how they want to handle this..The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
It's what the gays are always saying- "We're not forcing you to do anything!" Well, if they made the clergies perform gay marriages, they would be forcing them to do something they don't agree with- and same sex marriage is against most religions anyway.The clergy should not be forced to perform in gay marriage ceremonies...
and besides that I wouldnt want someone performing my wedding who was against it anyway...I think...
Well they should not be forced ......but why not have it for the ones that want toI think...
you should be able to marry whome ever you want no matter the sex.