Catholic Governor Lynch signs Civil Union Bill in NH

[gam197]

Please continue to pray for New Hampshire as this will now go to the courts.

chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4850842.html

May 31, 2007, 11:15AM
N.H. governor signs civil unions law

By BEVERLEY WANG Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Subscribe NOW
Comments

Recommend

CONCORD, N.H. — Gay couples in New Hampshire can start applying for many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage as early as January under a law Gov. John Lynch signed Thursday establishing civil unions.

“We in New Hampshire have had a long and proud tradition taking the lead in opposing discrimination,” Lynch said. “Today that tradition continues.”

Couples who enter civil unions will have the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as married couples. Same-sex unions from other states also would be recognized if they were legal in the state where they were performed.

Legislators who gathered for the bill signing packed the governor’s chambers and overflowed into an adjoining sitting room. They snapped photos and burst into applause as he signed it.

“I’ve listened and I’ve heard all the arguments,” said Lynch, a Democrat. “I do not believe that this bill threatens marriage. I believe that this is a matter of conscience and fairness.”

Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson was among those attending. Although his consecration in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church divided the worldwide Anglican Communion to which it belongs, Robinson and his longtime partner plan to take advantage of civil unions.

 

[jmj603]

Horrible. Although income and sales taxes are low, NH is fast becoming difficult to tolerate.

St. Joseph, patron of the diocese of Manchester, pray for us.

 

[Brenda4God]

Oh my. Even New Hampshire now? I thought it was like the only New England state that hadn’t completely lost its marbles. Maybe all those Vermonters and people from Massachusetts are invading and taking over.

 

[gam197]

Sadly NH has been a republican state for a hundreds of years but it now has a democrat House, Senate and Governor. No it’s not the Massachusetts and Vermonters taking over although they do have their influence.

I believe it is the people in NH. They have lost a since of morals as many states have. Marriage between two men or women doesn’t bother them. They see it as a right. It is the dumbing down and lost of God in the culture when people can’t tell right from wrong anymore. We all want to blame someone else.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO PRAY as it will go to the courts.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I am not upset by this. As long as it remains a civil matter, the choices people make are answerable only to God in the long run. If this civil union removes the legal hindrences such as HIPAA, and financial restrictions that are available only to traditional marriages then some justice might be served where it has been denied before, which are not spiritual concerns.

I do not think such unions should be sanctioned by any Christian denomination much less the Catholic Church. Free Will is something we all share as created rational beings, and the exercise of it should not be hindered by the Church in the secular society we find ourselves.

The Church is not being discriminatory by refusing to honor and perform such unions, and such demands for recognition by homosexuals are misguided. In America, the government and religious institutions are separated by law, and though they influence each other, neither can demand/enforce change from the other. For those that follow Her guidance this decision has no direct negative imact as I understand it.

The danger in my view is the slippery slope this brings upon our society. But danger alone should not hinder reasonable action. I think it reasonable that; for example, a gay couple that loves each other and having commited to each other, it is reasonable to allow one to legally make medical or financial decisions for the other in the same way only a husband and wife can now for each other if one is unable to.

But because I feel the homosexual lifestyle is ultimately against Natural Law, the subject of gay adoption, gay/lesbian invitro families, and the continued acceptability and mainstreaming of such lifestyles is harmfull to the spiritual society we as Catholics should be trying to foster.

When it comes to the individual I can demand/enforce nothing with respect to their personal choices, but I can tell them the Truth if they are willing to listen, and be an example to them by faithfully practicing my own belief. (which is not always easy)

In this regard I am trying to take what I think Christ’s attitude was to sin in a particular instance. The perception of those who brought her to Him for judgemnt changed.

The more that come to believe in Him, the less this same-sex issue will be an issue, but In America, under the Constitutional freedoms all citizens have to believe and practice as they wish as long as society at large is not adversely affected- some rights should not be denied even to the sinner simply because enough people do not think it is a sin.

 

[Mirdath]

I am not upset by this. As long as it remains a civil matter, the choices people make are answerable only to God in the long run.

Thank you for that overdue dose of rationality!

 

[jmj603]

I am not upset by this. As long as it remains a civil matter, the choices people make are answerable only to God in the long run. If this civil union removes the legal hindrences such as HIPAA, and financial restrictions that are available only to traditional marriages then some justice might be served where it has been denied before, which are not spiritual concerns.

Our choice in accepting or fighting against this unjust law is also answerable to God. See Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. We need to listen to Her, especially in these last days when

I think it reasonable that; for example, a gay couple that loves each other and having commited to each other

How is it an act of love to commit a vile, detestable mortal sin with him or her? Mortal sin destroys charity (love) in the heart, and what is left is a facade of self-interested arrangements for emotional and carnal pleasure. Friendship between two homosexuals might someday develop when the act is no longer possible, but the very reason for their relationship’s existence is an act of extreme hatred for themselves and for God. If we call sodomite relationships “love” we are in essence surrendering Love itself to the enemy, an act of philosophical apostasy.

The statistics on commitment in male homosexual couples show that there is none. All male homosexual couples of long duration have experienced unfaithfulness.

In this regard I am trying to take what I think Christ’s attitude was to sin in a particular instance. The perception of those who brought her to Him for judgemnt changed.

His words to the woman were “Go and sin no more.” He did not say it would be all right for her to go back and live with her adulterous lover in a loving, committed relationship. He did not tell the people there to grant her the right to visit her lover on his sick bed, whether his wife was around or not. He did not tell them they had to give some of the orphans of the community to the couple to adopt. He did not tell their doctors they had to treat them as if they were married for the purposes of payment arrangements.

Jesus hated sin. He hated fornication and contraception, unjust commercial dealings, sloth and gluttony and disobedience, envy and pride, wrath and greed and lovelessness. Sometimes it is hard to face this and the consequences it has in our own lives.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Our choice in accepting or fighting against this unjust law is also answerable to God. See Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

I’ll admit it was statements like yours that made me wander away from the Church for many years. His judgement on me in that regard I do not fear. Plus it allows me to be truly friendly and charitable to gay human beings without condoning or condemning.

The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. We need to listen to Her, especially in these last days

As an individual I recognize the Truth and follow it as best I can. Because of that Truth I came back to the Church. The last days are irellevent- today is enough worry about.

How is it an act of love to commit a vile, detestable mortal sin with him or her? Mortal sin destroys charity (love) in the heart, and what is left is a facade of self-interested arrangements for emotional and carnal pleasure. Friendship between two homosexuals might someday develop when the act is no longer possible, but the very reason for their relationship’s existence is an act of extreme hatred for themselves and for God. If we call sodomite relationships “love” we are in essence surrendering Love itself to the enemy, an act of philosophical apostasy.

I don’t care if they call it “pizza”, but it is not a marriage in the spiritual sense. Who are you to decide what these people feel?

The statistics on commitment in male homosexual couples show that there is none. All male homosexual couples of long duration have experienced unfaithfulness.

So what? They will answer for their own actions, judged by their own heart. Since lesbians were not mentioned, and are prettier, do they get a pass from you? Male/female relationships are little better with a 50% divorce rate. Nothing I would trumpet as the ideal.

His words to the woman were “Go and sin no more.” He did not say it would be all right for her to go back and live with her adulterous lover in a loving, committed relationship. He did not tell the people there to grant her the right to visit her lover on his sick bed, whether his wife was around or not. He did not tell them they had to give some of the orphans of the community to the couple to adopt. He did not tell their doctors they had to treat them as if they were married for the purposes of payment arrangements.

What were His words to those who brought her to Him? THAT was the point of the reference. You are one of those people. Listen to Him. What He said to her He might say to homosexuals.

Jesus hated sin. He hated fornication and contraception, unjust commercial dealings, sloth and gluttony and disobedience, envy and pride, wrath and greed and lovelessness. Sometimes it is hard to face this and the consequences it has in our own lives.

The best an individual can do is to do their best and not worry about others so much. If He hated it to the degree you think He would have cast a stone at her. He didn’t. Why are you?

Pull the heterosexual beam out of your own eye before trying to remove the homosexual splinter out of your brothers eye.

 

[jmj603]

I’ll admit it was statements like yours that made me wander away from the Church for many years.

Statements don’t make people wander. They may give scandal, of course, but it is still a personal choice to take scandal. Likewise, we can agree that civil unions do not by themselves cause sins of the flesh, they merely ratify them.

His judgement on me in that regard I do not fear.

I fear His judgement on all my actions, past, present and future, because all my actions will be judged. This isn’t supposed to be a servile fear, cowering before an unjust master, but that of a son who fears letting down his father.

Plus it allows me to be truly friendly and charitable to gay human beings without condoning or condemning.

What does “it” mean? The lack of fear? Fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You have to have some, or you wouldn’t be Catholic. As far as charity goes, among the Spiritual Works of Mercy are instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners.

I don’t care if they call it “pizza”, but it is not a marriage in the spiritual sense.

Nor in the corporal sense.

Who are you to decide what these people feel?

When did I say what people feel? Except to say that people feel emotions and carnal impulses when they have sexual relations–which I don’t think is disputable, otherwise I didn’t touch on feelings at all. Love is not a feeling.

So what? They will answer for their own actions, judged by their own heart.

When the shadows that now mercifully blind them are illuminated by the light of Christ at their particular judgment, they may well curse us for our silence. And when we face our own particular judgment, we will see all the missed opportunities we could have used to lead others to Christ.

Male/female relationships are little better with a 50% divorce rate. Nothing I would trumpet as the ideal.

You’re missing the point. Clinical research found ZERO instances, nationwide, of any long-term faithful male homosexual couples. It is not proven as a possibility. BTW, the divorce rate among couples that practice Natural Family Planning is less than 2%.

What were His words to those who brought her to Him? THAT was the point of the reference. You are one of those people. Listen to Him.

Totally uncalled for. You call me a mob executioner because I speak the moral Truth? Listen to Him too. He didn’t say to them, “ignore adultery.” He said, (paraphrasing), don’t stone adulteresses to death. The stones that were cast were real, sharp, heavy things. Perhaps insults would count, like the ones you hurl at me, but did I insult you or anyone else? When?

He wrote their own sins in the sand (without naming names), and said “do not cast the first stone”. He didn’t say, don’t admonish sinners, He said don’t stone them to death. He didn’t say, pretend they’re not sinning and integrate their sinful relationship into the fabric of the community, He said don’t end their lives. What is worse than killing them corporally is to let them die in their sins, because that is an eternal death.

What He said to her He might say to homosexuals.

Right, and what is the Governor of New Hampshire saying to homosexuals? He’s saying, go and sin some more, and we’ll give you benefits (in fact, all the benefits of marriage).

The best an individual can do is to do their best and not worry about others so much. If He hated it to the degree you think He would have cast a stone at her. He didn’t. Why are you?

We have to worry about our brothers and sisters. It was Cain who said, “Am I my brother’s keeper”. Again, despite your vitriolic attacks, I’m not casting stones, real or metaphorical, at anyone. I am not condemning anyone. I am saying, “go and sin no more”, to anyone who will listen.

Pull the heterosexual beam out of your own eye

What is that supposed to mean? Is heterosexuality a sin? Is it even a disorder?

 

[jmj603]

Mundus vult decepi

Interesting. According to Wikipedia:

The saying ascribed to Petronius mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur means “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.”

Is that how you meant it?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Statements don’t make people wander. They may give scandal, of course, but it is still a personal choice to take scandal. Likewise, we can agree that civil unions do not by themselves cause sins of the flesh, they merely ratify them.

Intolerant statements of

How is it an act of love to commit a vile, detestable mortal sin with him or her? Mortal sin destroys charity (love) in the heart, and what is left is a facade of self-interested arrangements for emotional and carnal pleasure. Friendship between two homosexuals might someday develop when the act is no longer possible, but the very reason for their relationship’s existence is an act of extreme hatred for themselves and for God. If we call sodomite relationships “love” we are in essence surrendering Love itself to the enemy, an act of philosophical apostasy.

made me take a spiritual journey away. You make the assumtion it ratifies the sin. I make the claim the civil permission for one gay partner to give medical advice for another when needed, or for financial transactions has no spiritual conflict.

I fear His judgement on all my actions, past, present and future, because all my actions will be judged. This isn’t supposed to be a servile fear, cowering before an unjust master, but that of a son who fears letting down his father.

It is my judgement alone, as is yours.

What does “it” mean? The lack of fear? Fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You have to have some, or you wouldn’t be Catholic. As far as charity goes, among the Spiritual Works of Mercy are instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners.

“It” means my conscience. It means I make no personal judgement on homosexuals. I fear to be a hypocrite about sin.

Nor in the corporal sense.

My op was limited to civil law with respect to the world in which we live. It is not a Catholic Theocracy, but a Representative Republic.

When did I say what people feel? Except to say that people feel emotions and carnal impulses when they have sexual relations–which I don’t think is disputable, otherwise I didn’t touch on feelings at all. Love is not a feeling.

Is this the love you show homosexuals?

https://jasmynecannick.typepad.com

When the shadows that now mercifully blind them are illuminated by the light of Christ at their particular judgment, they may well curse us for our silence. And when we face our own particular judgment, we will see all the missed opportunities we could have used to lead others to Christ.

They may indeed, but how is that blindness mercifull? My position has no bearing on being silent about the position of homosexuality in the Church, nor does it limit me from speaking the Truth.

You’re missing the point. Clinical research found ZERO instances, nationwide, of any long-term faithful male homosexual couples. It is not proven as a possibility. BTW, the divorce rate among couples that practice Natural Family Planning is less than 2%.

No, I did not miss your point. You missed mine.

Totally uncalled for. You call me a mob executioner because I speak the moral Truth? Listen to Him too. He didn’t say to them, “ignore adultery.” He said, (paraphrasing), don’t stone adulteresses to death. The stones that were cast were real, sharp, heavy things. Perhaps insults would count, like the ones you hurl at me, but did I insult you or anyone else? When?

No, it’s not uncalled for. Your statements are spiritually dragging in every homosexual to be stoned per the Law, just as the Jewish leaders did to that woman. What He did was ignore them first, admonish them 2nd, and ignored them again. He acted very nonchalant about the sin. I did not intend to insult, but to state a fact. If you are offended by it, you might look in the mirror.

 

[Verisimilitude]

He wrote their own sins in the sand (without naming names), and said “do not cast the first stone”. He didn’t say, don’t admonish sinners, He said don’t stone them to death. He didn’t say, pretend they’re not sinning and integrate their sinful relationship into the fabric of the community, He said don’t end their lives. What is worse than killing them corporally is to let them die in their sins, because that is an eternal death.

You read much more into it than is there, good, or accurately. Would you oppose a medical clinic for prostitutes that checked them for AIDS, or other STD’s because their actions are sinfull? The misery of disease for them and their customers as a “just reward” for their sin?

Right, and what is the Governor of New Hampshire saying to homosexuals? He’s saying, go and sin some more, and we’ll give you benefits (in fact, all the benefits of marriage).

If the majority of his constituants voted for it, he did as he was elected to do. He could have resigned or not signed it. If that law includes adoption or other family rights, I would oppose it. Otherwise, give unto Caesar…

We have to worry about our brothers and sisters. It was Cain who said, “Am I my brother’s keeper”. Again, despite your vitriolic attacks, I’m not casting stones, real or metaphorical, at anyone. I am not condemning anyone. I am saying, “go and sin no more”, to anyone who will listen.

I do worry about them. I think you are a bit thin skinned, and yes, you are.

What is that supposed to mean? Is heterosexuality a sin? Is it even a disorder?

That means: Are you able to follow your own advice, of “go and sin no more”?

 

[jmj603]

Intolerant statements of

The statement you quoted was intolerant of sin. If it is a true statement then it would sound true to the homosexual who heard it, and he would know it in his heart to be true, and he would have a choice to follow it to its conclusion (contrition) or not. But if you don’t hear the Truth, you can’t follow it.

made me take a spiritual journey away.

I don’t think this is literally possible. Nobody can force another to commit a sin. I say this as one who took a journey away and have tried to blame other people for it. It was my own response to the scandal (my falling) which doomed me, not the scandal itself, though I was weak beforehand and the scandalizers share blame.

You make the assumtion it ratifies the sin. I make the claim the civil permission for one gay partner to give medical advice for another when needed, or for financial transactions has no spiritual conflict.

Why just for gay partners? What is special about their relationship that deserves special legal recognition?

“It” means my conscience. It means I make no personal judgement on homosexuals. I fear to be a hypocrite about sin.

As do I.

My op was limited to civil law with respect to the world in which we live. It is not a Catholic Theocracy, but a Representative Republic.

The Vatican has spent quite a deal of time and energy teaching how Catholics should behave in the world in which we live. The document I quoted first, written in 2003, is one fruit of this labor.

Is this the love you show homosexuals?

I hope so. Here is a quote from that article:

Considering the goods by themselves, there is a triple order:

1. the most important spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then
2. the intrinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life, health, knowledge, liberty, etc.;
3. finally, the extrinsic goods of reputation, wealth, etc.

Viewing apart the various kinds of necessity, the following order would obtain:

1. first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing to help himself;
2. second, grave necessity, when one placed in similar danger can extricate himself only by heroic efforts;
3. third, common necessity, such as affects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help themselves without great difficulty.

When the three factors are combined, they give rise to complicated rules, the principal of which are these:

1. The love of complacency and the love of benefaction do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the nearness and need, of the neighbour.
2. Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God’s protection.
3. We are bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an obligation which, however supposes the certainty of the neighbour’s need and of the effectiveness of our service to him.
4. Except in the very rare cases described above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of inconvenience which is justified by the neighbour’s need and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one’s life for another’s life of equal importance.

IMG

Now you’re equating me with the tiny heretical sect of fundamentalist Protestants who believe that God hates certain men and women. Needless to say, I am not saying that God hates Sodomites, but that God detests sodomy.

 

[jmj603]

They may indeed, but how is that blindness mercifull?

It could also be described as a just punishment. I had once heard that it was merciful in that it prevented the sinner who would not repent from acquiring culpability for further offenses, but I’m not so sure about that. A good question to pose to the forum?

My position has no bearing on being silent about the position of homosexuality in the Church, nor does it limit me from speaking the Truth.

The Truth, taught by the Church, is that all Catholics must oppose civil unions.

]No, I did not miss your point. You missed mine.

Well, what was the point?

No, it’s not uncalled for. Your statements are spiritually dragging in every homosexual to be stoned per the Law

How’s that?

[Jesus] acted very nonchalant about the sin.

He didn’t lose His peace. But the entire reason for His intervention was to save sinners from sin. The sinners in the crowd were rebuked for their sins, which He wrote in the dust. The adulterous woman was saved from a life of sin, NOT from temporal death–she died later, after all, but not before she became a great saint, the first contemplative nun, Apostle to the Apostles, and evangelizer of France.

 

[jmj603]

You read much more into it than is there, good, or accurately. Would you oppose a medical clinic for prostitutes that checked them for AIDS, or other STD’s because their actions are sinfull? The misery of disease for them and their customers as a “just reward” for their sin?

I do oppose the Nevada system of licensing prostitutes and requiring that they submit regularly to physical examinations and STD checks. It is degrading to women and encouraging to clients. I support free, charitable medical clinics for the disadvantaged, including AIDS and STD testing for those deemed at risk and treatment for those who suffer from those dreadful diseases. As far as specific clinics aimed exclusively and prostitutes and johns, I don’t think that’s appropriate. As far as specific STD clinics, I think it would be better to include those services as part of a complete health clinic.

If the majority of his constituants voted for it, he did as he was elected to do. He could have resigned or not signed it. If that law includes adoption or other family rights, I would oppose it. Otherwise, give unto Caesar…

From the bill itself:

This bill permits same gender couples to enter civil unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples.

That would seem to include the right to adopt children.

The governor does have the power to not sign (veto) it, but he signed it anyway. He could have resigned. Above all, he has the power to not enforce it, because God’s law is above human law. If the human law says you have to commit murder, you don’t have to follow it because God’s law says do not kill. To repeat the quote from the Vatican document:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

I do worry about them. I think you are a bit thin skinned, and yes, you are.

LOL. I may well be thin-skinned.

That means: Are you able to follow your own advice, of “go and sin no more”?

Do you ask because you think it is impossible?

 

[gam197]

HB51 allows any two unmarried people in a familiar relation to adopt so now NH has gay adoption and NH also recognized gay marriages from other states in another bill. They have it all.

 

[jmj603]

HB51 allows any two unmarried people in a familiar relation to adopt so now NH has gay adoption and NH also recognized gay marriages from other states in another bill. They have it all.

Right, HB51 allows any two unmarried people (cohabitating same-sex, cohabitating heterosexuals) to adopt. Under HB437, a same-sex couple in a civil union could adopt as could married people under the previous law.

The best that can be said about HB51 is that it limited the number of parents to two.

 

[Mirdath]

You’re missing the point. Clinical research found ZERO instances, nationwide, of any long-term faithful male homosexual couples. It is not proven as a possibility. BTW, the divorce rate among couples that practice Natural Family Planning is less than 2%.

Back this up. Is 20 years long-term enough for you? I happen to know a few gay couples that’ve been together longer than that. In fact, I’d say I know of no real difference in fidelity between straight and gay couples – and once again, you’re leaving out the lesbians. Why?

The saying ascribed to Petronius mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur means “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.”

Is that how you meant it?

Literary reference (to something else). Interpret it as you will.

That would seem to include the right to adopt children.

What right? It’s a privilege granted on an individual basis.

 

[Suat]

It is not as though they are forcing your churches to perform the ceremonies. You are still more than welcome to deny them so called sacramental marriages, you just will not be able to prevent them from enjoying the same civil rights that you do .

 

[gam197]

No but they are forcing the hetersexual couples who are already struggling financially to pay taxes for many of the 400 benefits included:

1.) Pensions(firefighters, policemen, teachers and stae employees homosexual partners will not be entitled to each other pensions)

2.) group health insurance

3.) group dental insurance

4.) family leave benefits

5.) loans to veterans

6.) state pay for military service

7.) Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribtuion, interstate succession, waiver of will, survivorship of property(placing someone in a nursing home after switching ownership of property)

8.) Causes of action related to dependent upon spousal status - wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium law suits.