The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee recommended on Tuesday that the state Senate approve Democratic Gov. John Lynch's recommended changes to the same-sex marriage bill, passed by the state legislature on May 6. The changes will come to a vote in the House and Senate on Wednesday as an amendment to another bill.
Lynch's recommendations explicitly provide protection for religious institutions and their employees from discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Lynch stands by his previous statements that he will sign the same-sex bill if these protections are added, Lynch's press secretary, Colin Manning, said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
"All of the pieces will come together," state Sen. Matthew Houde '91, D-Plainfield, told The Dartmouth. "The bills build on each other."
State Rep. Barbara Richardson, D-Cheshire, said that the particular House representatives present during Wednesday's vote will be a "big factor" in the vote's outcome.
"It could really depend on which side has more representatives there," Richardson said.
The original same-sex marriage legislation passed on its second vote in the state House on March 30, 186 to 179, after the measure initially failed 182 to 183.
Supporters of the original same-sex marriage legislation have not publicly objected to the revisions.
"One of the ideas [of the same-sex marriage legislation] is to provide equal treatment for all New Hampshire residents," Houde, a member of the judiciary committee, said. "The amendments make it clear that there is also protection for religious freedom."
Other members of the state Senate Judiciary Committee did not return requests for comment by press time.
Richardson, who sponsored the original same-sex marriage bill in the House, said she supported changes that would encourage Lynch to sign the bill.
"The most important thing is for [the law] to get passed," Richardson said.
Opponents of the amendment who also oppose same-sex marriage said they were against the revisions because they do not protect secular businesses and their employees who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.
"We feel that the amendment should have gone further in protecting the religious liberties and the consciences of folks and businesses who, because of their sincere beliefs, cannot in good conscience perform services for same-sex ceremonies," said Kevin Smith, executive director for Cornerstone Policy Research, a think tank that advocates for "strong families, limited government and free markets."
Smith said he is concerned that the current version of the law leaves non-religiously affiliated businesses who oppose same-sex marriage open to litigation if they refuse to work for same-sex couples.
Houde said expanding protection to any individual opposed to same-sex marriage "would go too far."
"I think it would run afoul of our current non-discrimination laws," he said.
The New Hampshire legislature passed a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in employment, services, public accommodation and housing in 1998.
Three states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- currently permit same-sex marriages. A Maine law legalizing same-sex marriage will take effect in September, and a similar Vermont law will take effect on Jan. 1, 2010.
New Hampshire has recognized civil unions for same-sex couples since 2007.
