In an article in Foster's Daily Democrat discussing the vote to allow gay marriage in New Hampshire, the following lines occur:
Moreover, you are an American, and your allegiance ought to be to the right to individual liberty of conscience, rather than to your church, as you act as Representative of your constituents: not all of your constituents, Madame, belong to your congregation or to your denomination or even, Madame, to your religion. Why, then, are you proposing that your family's adherence to your church should override the adherence of your constituents to their churches, synagogues, mosques, circles, and societies? I dare imagine that, should you find yourself replaced by a Moslem of like mind, you would be appalled at her attempts to enforce a Shari'a interpretation of marriage customs upon you.
You are proposing, Madame, that your personal religious convictions should override the individual freedoms of the rest of your state.
And that, Madame, that is unAmerican.
"I was raised in the church and my family was raised in the church and my grandchildren are being raised in the church and we have always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman," Brown said, bemoaning the "disrespect for decorum" showed by people in the House balcony during Wednesday's vote.If to you marriage is between a man and a woman, Madame, then I urge you to partake in a marriage of that kind. To me, marriage is between unrelated sapient adults who are prepared to share passion, protection, and personal space; and I partake of a marriage of this kind. But in your definition of what marriage is to you, you wish forcibly to deny others the right to participate in what marriage is to them. Why is your definition one that deserves to override theirs?
"I am not prejudice[sic]," she added. "I have known homosexual men throughout my entire life and I have never had a problem, but marriage to me is between a man and a woman."
Moreover, you are an American, and your allegiance ought to be to the right to individual liberty of conscience, rather than to your church, as you act as Representative of your constituents: not all of your constituents, Madame, belong to your congregation or to your denomination or even, Madame, to your religion. Why, then, are you proposing that your family's adherence to your church should override the adherence of your constituents to their churches, synagogues, mosques, circles, and societies? I dare imagine that, should you find yourself replaced by a Moslem of like mind, you would be appalled at her attempts to enforce a Shari'a interpretation of marriage customs upon you.
You are proposing, Madame, that your personal religious convictions should override the individual freedoms of the rest of your state.
And that, Madame, that is unAmerican.