Ron Tunning

For those of us who are truly dedicated to ending discrimination in our state and in our nation, we can be proud of the members of the N.H. House and Senate who supported the civil unions legislation signed into law this past week by Gov. John Lynch.

Granted, it may not be perfect, for it still denies gay and lesbian couples the right to be “married,” but for all intents and purposes it does extend to the thousands of New Hampshire couples who up to now have been marginalized the legal protections that for too long they have been denied. Moreover, it acknowledges that their relationships deserve to be treated with respect while simultaneously demanding that they fulfill the same responsibilities incumbent upon all who formally and legally commit their lives to each other.

There remains a significant segment of the population who opposes the legislation, largely on moral and/or religious grounds. It’s important that all of us respect those beliefs. A fundamental principle of American Democracy enshrined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion, and to fail to honor that would be every bit as egregious as discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But it’s equally important that those whose religious beliefs are at conflict with the new legislation respect the beliefs of those who oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation. The rights of the First Amendment apply to everyone — even to those with whom we disagree.

As a child growing up in a Roman Catholic household prior to Vatican II, Fridays were designated as days of fasting. Meat was not allowed, so we could anticipate a dinner of fish sticks, or grilled cheese and tomato soup, and on occasion, a breakfast meal sans the bacon and sausage.

Quite honestly, I don’t recall that we ever complained, even when we observed our friends and neighbors consuming burgers or steaks. Nor would it have ever occurred to us to suggest that government prohibit others from consuming meat.

Birth control, aside from the hugely ineffective rhythm method, was another proscription of our faith. The evidence of the faithful was easily observed by the large families dominant in our parish. But again, I don’t recall that anyone in my family or in my parish ever advocated making the “pill” or condoms illegal until in recent years.

One of my closest friends and a fraternity brother during my college years refused to drink coffee, tea or even Coca-Cola because his Mormon faith prohibited it. I admit I thought it was a bit weird, but it never entered my mind that he didn’t or shouldn’t have the right to believe in, and adhere to the tenets of his faith.

It’s been over two decades since one of my sisters shunned her Catholic upbringing, shocking the family by becoming a Jehovah’s Witness. Admittedly, her refusal to allow birthdays, Christmas and other holidays to be celebrated was a cause of much consternation among my family members, accustomed as we were to lavish festivities marking what we viewed as important occasions. Yet even though we singularly and collectively attempted to coerce her into abandoning her newfound faith, when we failed in our persuasion our response was not to seek the intervention of legislation. How absurd would that have been?

My point is that each of us is entitled to our beliefs, but none of us has the right to impose those beliefs on others, or to deny others their beliefs. Now I’ve heard arguments that allowing civil unions or gay marriages somehow encroaches on the religious beliefs of others. That’s ridiculous.

Nothing in the legislation imposes gay relationships on anyone. It doesn’t direct anyone to enter into such a relationship, nor deny anyone the right to refuse to enter into such a relationship. It merely acknowledges that each of us should have the freedom to choose with whom we wish to share and commit our lives.

What I found most heartening about the legislative process that led to the passage of the civil unions bill is that unlike in other states, it was not precipitated by any court action or decree. It arose purely from the conscience of the legislative body.

And supporting the legislation were members on both sides of the political aisle, Democrats and Republicans alike. All of us should be proud of our local legislators who supported this landmark legislation, including Reps. Judie Reever, Beth Arsenault and Jane Wood of Laconia, Rep. Gail Morrison of Sanbornton, Rep. Alida Millham of Gilford, Rep. Dr. James Pilliod of Belmont, Rep. Jim Ryan of Franklin, and Sens. Kathy Sgambati and Deb Reynolds.

They have proven that partisanship can be set aside in pursuit of a better and more equitable New Hampshire.