Is there any hope that the Lynch Mods would be struck down as being overly broad and unclear?

Can some legal scholars clarify?

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,

How broad is this? Does it explicitly include groups and individuals who were not already covered under the first amendment to the US constitution?

shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual

ut oh. This sounds ominous.

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,

So, say, Notre Dame could prevent a married couple from staying in housing for married couples?

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,

So the Elks, Moose, Rotary Club, etc. can deny membership to the spouse of a member because they don't think the member should have married a man/woman/Jew/Christian/Buddhist/Wiccan/Zarathuthran/atheist/older person/younger person/tall person/short perso/caucasian/african/asian/etc. ?

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

So (for people involved with such institutions) we still don't get insurance benefits? Equal in name only?

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.

I'm guessing this is just superfluous, right?

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 RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

Not sure what this does.

I assume this cautiousness applies only to same-sex couples, right? Because there has been very little hand wringing and blood curdling fear squirting out of the Christianists in regard to divorce or the serial "opposite" married couples.

Those exceptions to religious rules - the mortal sins that are tickets to hell - are legal, legitimate practices that are not held up to the same scrutiny as same-sex relationships are and yet there is no language necessary to protect religious freedoms from the scourge of the multiply wed.

If this wording is necessary in order to uphold the principle of equal protection - truly the heart of the marriage equality matter - then we need to ask AND get some answers to some tough questions:

Are same-sex couples the only group that religious institutions need to be protected from? Who else is threatening the freedom of religion by being granted full citizenship?

Why did this uproar not occur in regard to the divorced and couples involved in subsequent marriages? Do Catholic schools also need to be protected from being forced to enroll Jewish children?

How exactly is the protection of religious institutions in this manner NOT just more legislative bigotry?

Should we reconsider the rights of religious (or even secular) institutions to racially (or religiously) segregate if they are not comfortable with upholding the law? Maybe the Knights of Columbus is no longer comfortable allowing blacks to use the same restrooms as non-blacks.

I am in agreement with most everyone here. Pretty much "re-grants" the krazy kristian kooks what the Constitution already provides, and as observed by the first commenter, takes away their primary argument of opposition.

They have always tried to claim that some how gay marriage will destroy the institution entirely, but most people now consider that pretty laughable. They seem to make some headway with the claim that we'll invade their churches and demand that their ministers provide the marriage sacrament. While not true, I can see how the masses would fall prey to the argument.

So, take it away, and they aren't left with much.

I would have preferred that he sign the bill as it was amended by the Senate, however as a NH resident, I'll take this compromise. It's better than a veto. We've all worked really hard to get this bill through the NH House and Senate, I certainly don't want to start the entire process over again next year. It's bad enough that HB415 was killed and we have to do that all over again.

I'm not sure how this proposed amendment would square with existing nondiscrimination law in New Hampshire since it includes sexual orientation. Doesn't the amendment set up a contradictory set of rules?

Of course, transgender people would be affected by the amendment even if same sex couples were given an exemption on the basis of New Hampshire nondiscrimination law. Could that be the governor's real intention?

I'm just speculating here, I don't know the law well enough to say either way. Is there a better educated opinion out there?

It would be nice if there were no need for this, but there are people out there who would readily sue or take legal action against a church if this rider were not added. I myself can't understand how any couple would want to have services thru a Church that didn't want them, but considering things like how e-harmony was sued because they didn't provide love connections for gay people (something I consider ridiculous), there is obviously a reason to put this in.