Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

In the New Hampshire state constitution:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

Wow. Compared to this, the implicit acquiesce to such right inherent in the Second Amendment (or the Declaration of Independence) seems weak. I guess there is a reason they say, “Live free or die”—only if all other states could follow this example and say that governments can be overthrown and should be overthrown, should it ever become too oppressive (with the People having the sole power to determine when it has become too oppressive).

I didn’t know that. And somehow it didn’t really make into national news either, like when Vermont’s legislature approved same-sex marriage.

In any case, the new law seems to be … adequate compromise between the two sides:

Beginning Jan. 1, New Hampshire law will allow gay marriage, but will also offer legal protections to churches and clergy who choose not to perform gay marriages.

After the press conference, Binnie spokesman Colin Maynard said Binnie wanted to focus on economic issues. When pressed to clarify Binnie’s stance on gay marriage, Maynard said Binnie supports New Hampshire’s law because it allows churches to do what they are comfortable with.

It’s a precarious protection (for religious beliefs that do not harm other people), but, well, until the day we can get the government out of marriage business altogether, I guess this is the best we can hope for.