Has it been that long?

Wow, already almost two full days that I haven't updated this blog (other than to comment on how I haven't updated this blog). Consequentially, I now have a buttload of issues, stories and random stuff to comment on – but all the better, really. =)

For starters, more on the upcoming New Hampshire vote on the same-sex marriage issue. It's already known that Governor John Lynch is all for signing the bill into law if it gets to his office, though only if it's reworded and amended as to clearly exempt any and all religious groups and entities from being "obligated" to marry same-sex couples in order to try and "preserve religious freedom". Below is the full text of the required alterations, taken directly from Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any 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 religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

That actually sounds fine to me (as I've already said). If religious groups don't want to wed gays and lesbians, eh; don't make 'em. Plenty of other institutions who will in their place, so it's really not much of a problem at all. The language definitely sounds a little broad at times, but it sounds like it could work without problem.

Hell, even the primary pro-same-sex-marriage group in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, have declared their approval of these changes to the bill, so if the largest group that supports gay marriage is all for the bill, I think I'm just about out of arguments against it. (Not that I had any to begin with.)