Today the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on HB 1264, which is essentially a “License To Discriminate” bill. The measure would allow businesses that oppose marriage equality to deny services to same-sex couples based on their “conscience” or religious beliefs. It also protects them from any civil claim of action for doing so:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person, including a business owner or employee thereof, shall be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage and providing such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges would be a violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith. A person’s refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such person.

Given the bill doesn’t even specify “same-sex” marriage, it would hypothetically protect the right of “conscience” to discriminate against any kind of marriage, including interracial, binational, and interdenominational couples. For this reason, it’s likely this bill would be preempted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other nondiscrimination statutes.

The language in this measure mirrors similar “license to bully” exemptions that have been proposed in Michigan and Tennessee that would protect students from discipline if they expressed anti-gay views in school. New Hampshire’s Republican-dominated legislature is also considering a bill that would repeal marriage equality despite the fact most New Hampshire voters support maintaining the law.

Conservatives supporting North Carolina’s proposed constitutional amendment banning recognition of all same-sex relationships have launched a new website called Vote For Marriage NC. The site describes same-sex marriage as a “threat” and  a “new legal orthodoxy” that would “redefine” marriage as “genderless” for all couples, and those who do not agree “will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs.” Unsurprisingly, none of the claims made stand up to scrutiny:

CLAIM	REALITY
“Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.”	The only example conservatives ever cite is a New Jersey Methodist pavilion, and that pavilion did not actually have a religious exemption.
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage.”	Catholic Charities have never been obligated to shut down their services, but have done so voluntarily when they are no longer subsidized by the state because they discriminate.
“Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.).”	Again, no group has been forced to close, though some may lose state funding. In one case, the Maine Catholic Diocese shuttered a homeless support agency as punishment for supporting marriage equality.
“Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution.”	Marriage equality or not, same-sex families are a part of all communities. To refuse to acknowledge their existence stigmatizes the children who are being raised by gay couples and deprives all young people of understanding the world around them.
“Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and New Hampshire are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.”	This is a red herring. When businesses are fined for not renting to same-sex couples, they are violating state non-discrimination policies, like in the case of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. Inns and reception halls should be no less publicly accessible than lunch counters and water fountains.
“Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.”	This is another red herring, as licensing laws and professional certifications have no connection to marriage laws. The 11th Circuit ruled last month in favor of a university that required a counseling student to affirmatively counsel LGBT clients.
“Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs… Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.”	No law has ever “penalized” opponents of marriage equality, but more importantly, there is no “strong majority” in support of the amendment. In fact, a December poll found that 56 percent of North Carolinians support at least civil unions — which this amendment also bans.

New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance same-sex marriage legislation in an 8 to 4 vote this afternoon, after hearing some three hours of testimony from opponents and supporters of marriage equality. To become law, the measure must also pass the full Senate, the Assembly, “and get by the governor,” who earlier today pledged to veto the bill and called on residents to vote on whether gays and lesbians should marry. During the hearing, Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D) directly addressed Christie’s comments. “The last time to my knowledge we put a civil right issue on referendum in the state of New Jersey was in 1915 and it was woman’s suffrage issue and the vote went down,” she said. “Women were not allowed to vote. This is our responsibility in this legislature.” The Republicans who voted against the measure all used Christie’s threat of a veto for cover, claiming that same-sex marriage would never pass under the current governor.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that a majority of New Jersey voters — 52 percent — support marriage equality while only 42 percent oppose it. Likewise, 65 percent believe same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage, 53 percent agree that denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination, and 66 percent adoption rights for same-sex couples.

The state has a long history of battling for LGBT equality. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. Harris that “every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.” The New Jersey legislature responded to the decision by legalizing civil unions, but a 2008 review commission found that “the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.” A marriage equality group is suing the state to establish same-sex marriage and is moving forward with the lawsuit despite the legislative effort.

Mark Neumann is a conservative opponent of gay rights who is challenging openly-gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to fill the seat being vacated by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). In a new campaign fundraiser, Neumann characterizes Baldwin as a “radical leftist” who would undermine traditional marriage and “impact you and your family”:

** She led the fight to redefine marriage to include same-sex pairings. [...]

Outside liberal groups like the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and EMILY’s List will come in hard with independent attack ads to rip my record and my good character. [...]

No matter where you live in America, her radicalism will have a direct impact on you and your family.

Neumann’s “good character” includes previous statements that he would eradicate homosexuality if he were God and refusal to hire a gay or lesbian employee because that would be “inappropriate.” Read the full attack-riddled mailer:

Mark Neumann Newsletter (2)

Lawmakers in Tennessee are considering legislation that would protect bullies who harass other students for their sexual orientation. The so-called “license to bully” bill (HB 1153/SB 0760) would allow students to share any “religious, philosophical, or political views” that are “unpopular,” regardless of their consequences to the learning environment, and limits educators’ ability to curb such harassment.

Equality advocates lodged an email protest campaign against the measure, but were particularly surprised by the reaction of state Rep. John Ragan (R). In a long letter to one opponent of the bill, Ragan replied that gay “feelings” can be controlled by “mentally healthy adult human beings,” and concluded by stating, “Should society avoid disapproving of pedophilia, prostitution, murder, etc., because practitioners of those behaviors may commit suicide at higher rates?” An excerpt from his letter:

Examining another statistic, it has been well known for a decade that suicide is attempted much more frequently in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community (Mathy, Cochran, Olsen, & Mays, 2009). This same source pointed out that, on average, suicide is approximately three times more likely among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

As a fitting critical thought question, it could be asked if other identifiable groups that engage in behavior of which “others may disapprove” commit suicide at similar rates? In other words, do prostitutes, pedophiles, polygamists, murders, etc., commit suicide at the same, or similar, rates to homosexual behavior practitioners? If similar rates were hypothetically so (not proven to be the case), do these behavior practitioners commit suicide at a higher rate because someone may have disapproved of their behavior or for other reasons? Should society avoid disapproving of pedophilia, prostitution, murder, etc., because practitioners of those behaviors may commit suicide at higher rates?

The mindset behind the measure undermines research that shows that the presence of LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying policies, supportive staff, and Gay-Straight Alliances help minimize bullying. In addition to this bill, the Tennessee legislature will also reconsider the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prevents teachers and staff from providing any educational support about LGBT identities.

Mitt Romney has never hidden the fact that he has a promised tithe to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but according to his tax returns released today, he gives back more to the Mormons than he pays to the federal government. Since 2010, the Romneys have given $7 million to charity, but over $4 million of that went directly to the Mormon Church, while they paid only $3 million to the IRS last year.

The Mormon Church is notoriously anti-gay, having raised an estimated $22 million in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, in addition to providing close to 90 percent of the early door-to-door volunteers advocating for the discriminatory measure. Because of blowback from this effort, LDS has been less aggressive in anti-gay campaigns, although just last week church leaders endorsed Minnesota’s marriage discrimination amendment. Some have questioned whether its involvement in ballot measures should compromise the church’s tax-exempt status and there is an on-going petition calling on the IRS to revoke it.

Though Romney never specifically endorsed Prop 8 aside from opposing same-sex marriage in general, the Church’s success in passing the measure may have helped advance his credibility among social conservatives.

Washington Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) announced her support for marriage equality yesterday, “providing the deciding vote in the Senate to legalize gay marriage in Washington state.” But Haugen’s endorsement didn’t stop opponents of same-sex marriage from leveling a host of offensive and derogatory claims against gay people during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Below is a compilation of the most flamboyant charges from state lawmakers, pastors, and anti-gay groups:

– REP. BRAD KLIPPERT (R): “Now we’re willing to change the definition of marriage to two persons. Why not a polygamist marriage?”

– KEN HUTCHERSON (Antioch Bible Church): “So you’re telling me that you know better than God. You’re telling met that God is not right by just limiting marriage to a man and a woman.”

– CHRISTOPHER PLANTE (NOM): “Today, you can go to the supermarket and buy seventh generation cleaning products because it is politically correct to be worried about the ecology we’re leaving the seventh generation. What is the social environment we’re going to leave the seventh generation?”

– BILL WELLS (Beginning Christian Church): “Hitler tried to change and redefine what life was and it was a great failure….I can’t believe at age of 58 I would even be here discussing something like this. It’s totally an abomination and disgusting.”

Watch the compilation:

Opponents of marriage equality have pledged to put marriage equality on the ballot and allow residents to vote on gay people’s unions. But a poll conducted by the University of Washington Center for Survey Research in October found that 55 percent of voters in Washington “would support a state gay marriage law if it’s approved by the Legislature.”