[Dilbert San Diego]

Do I understand this correctly?

The state House and Senate previously passed a marriage bill.

The governor sent it back, asking for language that would protect religions from being forced to accept same-sex marriage, and prohibit lawsuits against religions based on this.

And now the state House voted this version of the bill down? They are against provisions that would protect religions from being sued regarding same-sex marriage?

Am I missing something?

The governor had indicated he would sign a bill with religious exemptions in it.

New Hampshire would have legal same-sex marriage except for some not accepting a religious exclusion?

Am I missing something?

This should send a shudder down all of us if I understand this correctly. Unless I missed something, it sounds like they are against giving a religious exclusion in the cases of same-sex marriage. Thus, religions will eventually be sued over this issue, denied tax exempt status, and otherwise affected. There is no mainstream religion that I am aware of that recognizes same-sex marriage, though some do committment ceremonies for same-sex.

[Pyro7480]

It would depend on the reasons why the voted the way they did. Any Democrat who voted against that are probably against the religious exemptions.

[Buck W.]

“They are against provisions that would protect religions from being sued regarding same-sex marriage?”

That’s exactly the way I read it.

[campaignPete R-CT]

do ya think America will catch on soon? The agenda: persecute the opposition, indoctrinate the children. Coming to your state soon!

http://massresistance.com/docs/govt09/budget/senate_amendments_0518.html

Judges will eventually strike down any exemptions. Tolerate Diversity!

[greatplains]

Yep, you understand it correctly. Nope, you’re not missing anything.

[PatriotGirl827]

According to the article, you are correct.

[Dumb_Ox]

Very troubling possibility:

Opponents of pseudogamy vote against both bills.

Radical proponents of pseudogamy only vote against the bill with religious freedom protections.

The governor then bows to pressure to sign the original bill without the protections.

So sane people take the principled stand but end up with the worst outcome.

[fwdude]

You're not missing anything. You read this correctly - and so should every thinking New Hampshirite with a vote. This formerly veiled agenda is now out in the open for the world to see. Isn't it pretty? /sarc

[mvpel]

This should send a shudder down all of us if I understand this correctly. Unless I missed something, it sounds like they are against giving a religious exclusion in the cases of same-sex marriage.

No - the opportunity for a "religious exclusion" amendment to satisfy a flip-flopping Governor brought the bill back within range of artillery one last time, and it was narrowly clipped on the left wing and spiraled down into the sea.

[WilliamPatrick]

Yes you got it right. The only reason the bill did not pass is because it had exclusions to protect religious organizations from having to perform marital ceremonies. Such a bill would clearly be an infringement on the right to practice ones’ religion. It is a chilling reminder of how the left and the homosexual lobby is trying to impose its brand of morality on the rest of society. Its a form of state religion. I swear every New England state must be populated with moral imbeciles.