Gay Marriage going next to New Hampshire

Robdawg

Junior Member
NH governor backs gay marriage
By NORMA LOVE – 3 hours ago

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage as soon as the Legislature makes some changes, which legislative leaders immediately said they would back.

Lynch asked that the already-approved legislation be revised to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays. Gay marriage supporters said they do not object.

"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded," Lynch told reporters. "New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections."

Lynch said he personally opposes gay marriage, but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."

A gay marriage bill and companion legislation were adopted last week, but had yet to make it the governor's desk. Now, they will be held until the changes proposed by Lynch are approved, said Senate President Sylvia Larsen.

Larsen and House Speaker Terie Norelli predicted the Legislature would act quickly to adopt the changes, perhaps as early as next week.

"I want to thank the governor for his leadership in finding a way that our state can move forward to enact marriage equality and, at the same time, respect religious tolerance," said Norelli, D-Portsmouth.

The bill's main sponsor, state Rep. Jim Splaine, said the bottom line is that Lynch supports marriage equality for gays.

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, a group supporting gay marriage, approved of Lynch's proposed changes.

"This is language we can support," she said.

Four other New England states — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont — recognize same-sex marriage. Iowa is the other state to legalize gay marriage.

Lynch said he wanted the law modeled on Connecticut's, which he said contains better protections than the proposal adopted by the New Hampshire Legislature. For example, Lynch wants to be sure an organist employed by a church opposed to gay marriage could legally refuse to perform at a gay wedding.

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized Lynch, a Democrat, for his position.

"Once again, Gov. Lynch has discovered a way to be against something and for it at the same time," Sununu said.

Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research, said Lynch's proposed changes are a disingenuous attempt to obscure the fact Lynch misled the public into believing he opposed same-sex marriage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUUXsl3sakXbS8W1AYb4xSxxEMIgD98697C04
 
While I am personally opposed to the government being involved in any marriage, if they are going to do so they should do so equally for all consenting non-related adults.
 
While I am personally opposed to the government being involved in any marriage, if they are going to do so they should do so equally for all consenting non-related adults.

IMHO, they should just maintain the separate terminology for "unions" and "marriage", and allow both sexes to use either one at their whim, and both statuses should be equal. Within a generation the different terms will become an anachronism that no one cares about.
 
the horse is out of the barn... gay marriage will be legal in many more states within a decade or so.... there is no turning back.
 
IMHO, they should just maintain the separate terminology for "unions" and "marriage", and allow both sexes to use either one at their whim, and both statuses should be equal. Within a generation the different terms will become an anachronism that no one cares about.

I would not be opposed to that. Though I think we can get this bullshit resolved and have people not giving a shit faster than a generation.
 
I hear maine is considering legislation as well.


After New Hampshire and Maine I would say Rhode Island will be next. Then after that quite possibly New York and New Jersey
 
I hear maine is considering legislation as well.


After New Hampshire and Maine I would say Rhode Island will be next. Then after that quite possibly New York and New Jersey

Maine's already gay. So what if the whole liberal northeast is gay? The South will never be gay, and having that nice target up there for The Day of Reckoning can only be good for us Real Americans. :)
 
IMHO, they should just maintain the separate terminology for "unions" and "marriage", and allow both sexes to use either one at their whim, and both statuses should be equal. Within a generation the different terms will become an anachronism that no one cares about.

The problem is there will always be someone trying to sneak in some legislation favoring one or the other. People are always looking for some loophole.
 
The government sanctioning marriages is either going to change or go away.

As long as there are special benefits from the gov't for being married there will be a push for gay marriages. In a few years it will be legal nationwide. And in 10 years everyone will wonder why the issue was controversial.
 
If that was the gay agenda then they'd be satisfied with simple power-of-attorney or even civil unions.

I don't think the name of the ceremony is an issue. And I don't think having someone else marry effects me. I am happily married. If two men or two women marry it does not change that. Neither does a man or a woman cheating on their spouse or abusing their spouse. My marriage is what it is because of us not someone else.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.
 
I don't think the name of the ceremony is an issue. And I don't think having someone else marry effects me. I am happily married. If two men or two women marry it does not change that. Neither does a man or a woman cheating on their spouse or abusing their spouse. My marriage is what it is because of us not someone else.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.
Gays could use simple power-of-attorney or even civil unions, yet they insist on defaming a term used for millennia by the world's religions.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.
 
Gays could use simple power-of-attorney or even civil unions, yet they insist on defaming a term used for millennia by the world's religions.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.

Because someone will come along and try to make them different. Some law, some stipulation....people are like that. They exploit any difference they can.
 
Gays could use simple power-of-attorney or even civil unions, yet they insist on defaming a term used for millennia by the world's religions.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.

I do not see it as defaming. If a church does not want to marry gay couples then they shouldn't. If a church chooses to allow it they can.

If two people love each other and want to share their life and bond together it is not defaming anything. Besides there has been so much infidelity, abuse, violence, and divorce in regular marriages that it has been defamed already.
 
I do not see it as defaming. If a church does not want to marry gay couples then they shouldn't. If a church chooses to allow it they can.

If two people love each other and want to share their life and bond together it is not defaming anything. Besides there has been so much infidelity, abuse, violence, and divorce in regular marriages that it has been defamed already.

I think you missed the point. Why argue about a word, if there is no substantive difference in rights?
 
Back
Top