Yeah, crazy headline. But the news from New Hampshire is crazy.
They had a Gay Marriage law ready to pass (already passed by the State Senate), but the House narrowly defeated it, because some Gay Marriage advocates were aghast at religious protection provisions inserted by the Governor.
These provisions, common sense under the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion," would affirm that no clergy could be forced to perform same-sex weddings and that religious institutions would not have to bend their faith practices to accomodate it. (The Canon Law of the Episcopal Church, at present, is clear that no clergy person shall be obligated to solemnize any marriage. Wonder how the legislature would deal with language like that if challenged in court. But I digress).
Obviously, marriage for Gay couples is not the whole agenda of its advocates. This kind of dishonesty makes it harder to have the "dialogue" for which progressives so often plead.