G. W. Brooks

To the editor,

Rather than create new law, all the state needed to do is change old law — ref: RSA Title XLIII, Domestic Relations, Chapter 457, Marriages, Relationship, Section 457:1 No man shall marry his mother . … or any other man, and 457:2 No woman shall marry her father , … or any other woman — which, currently still stands as neither RSA has been rescinded or amended. The NH State Government (not by vote of the people) brought up to date the civil contract between two people (I’m assuming that ‘Civil Union applies to opposite sex couples as well (as law is not to be discriminatory).

Additionally marriage is a religious idea, if some people ‘borrow’ other’s religion to justify themselves, well that is one thing. But for this state’s government to violate the separation of church and state is another. I mean after all, the same people who want to remove God from the public seek to have the state sanctify their ‘union by declaring it a marriage. Our governor was on the right track but apparently he lost it. Perhaps he has never read our states Constitution; perhaps he thinks that the Federal Constitution overrules ours. Perhaps he has never read Amendment 9 (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) or 10 (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.). Most importantly he and most everyone else has failed to read N.H. Constitution's Article 4 (Rights of Conscience Unalienable). Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.

Of this kind are the Right of Conscience. Just as no judge can force me to sit in judgment of another on a jury for violating a law which I do not recognize as constitutional or which my conscious finds to violate my beliefs; so to no law can constitutionally force me to do business with or otherwise deal or associate with another in violation of my conscious. So it must be a smoke screen at least; that is assuming that our governor and legislators actually know the RSAs and Constitution, for what reason they complicate a simple and direct change of an RSA, violate the separation of church and state and lead us to believe the state can constitutionally require us to act against our conscious.

In other states individuals are being fined and worse for ‘violating’ the ‘new’ law, I’ve not read their constitutions but ours which is the oldest and was then detailed by vote of the people protects us from just such folly as it seems is being established. Ours is a Civil Government and Civil Union is exactly what it is. Marriage is a religious doctrine heretofore incorporated into civil law. People want change then have change, real change and embrace civil government.

G. W. Brooks

Meredith