Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Reconsidered! NH House passes gay marriage
After two days of debating, the New Hampshire House voted for gay marriage 186 to 179 after first voting against it, 183 to 182.
The first vote against equal marriage was so close that a representative asked for it to be reconsidered. After a few minutes of intense personal lobbying on the floor, it passed.Bills can only be reconsidered once, so the new vote is final.
The debate was ferocious, with one representative telling the anti-marriage contingent that it was against his religion to NOT solemnize gay marriage. “The state of New Hampshire should not have the right to impose your [anti-gay] religious beliefs on my family and my church,” he said.
The representative said that he has a cousin who is a lesbian and a choir director at a church.
Other pro-equal marriage representatives made arguments that “separate is never equal,” and that gay marriage would entice the best workers and businesses to come to the state.
Anti-gay representatives made the argument, unsupported by research, that gay people are pedophiles and gay parents are harmful to children and that gay marriage would open the door to polygamy. One anti-equal marriage representative acknowledged that, “We all knew how we were going to vote when we walked in here today.”
The bill next advances to the state Senate. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, is opposed to gay marriage, though he has not indicated whether he would veto the bill.
New Hampshire approved civil unions two years ago and were signed into law by Lynch; they went into effect last year.
A little confusion here, whomever wrote this article stated that the measure failed by one vote well according to the NH ledgislation website the bill terms are as follows;” HOUSE BILL 453
AN ACT establishing that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.
SPONSORS: Rep. Pepino, Hills 11; Rep. Daniels, Hills 6; Rep. J. Flanders, Rock 8; Sen. Barnes, Jr., Dist 17; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. This bill repeals the laws authorizing civil unions and deletes references to civil unions.”
This tells us that they were voting on the same type of thing that the other states were voting on to make the marriage between one man and one woman.
This was not a vote per say on gay marriage, and in fact if the measure failed then the wording does not get to be one man and one woman. Please explain this a little better, as it feels very contradictory.
A little confusion here, whomever wrote this article stated that the measure failed by one vote well according to the NH legislation website the bill terms are as follows;” HOUSE BILL 453
AN ACT establishing that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.
SPONSORS: Rep. Pepino, Hills 11; Rep. Daniels, Hills 6; Rep. J. Flanders, Rock 8; Sen. Barnes, Jr., Dist 17; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. This bill repeals the laws authorizing civil unions and deletes references to civil unions.”
This tells us that they were voting on the same type of thing that the other states were voting on to make the marriage between one man and one woman.
This was not a vote per say on gay marriage, and in fact if the measure failed then the wording does not get to be one man and one woman. Please explain this a little better, as it feels very contradictory.
Nice – now mabe you can change the title of the story on the main page.
It’s actually HB 436. The yes votes are for marriage.
Sorry for the confusion – my audio cut out after the vote – when it came back, they were reconsidering, so I changed the story!
Thanks Jennifer. I think the point raised here is that pro-gay marriage should also be approached as a “freedom of religion” issue because there are religions that do support gay marriage and it is not for the legislature to decide which religion is more valid than another. By voting to oppose gay marriage, you may well be forcing your religious views on the religios views of another. This line of reasoning worked well in Canada.
The author is correct in stating the bill’s purpose. She also recorded the vote correctly. However, Rep. Terie Norelli is stated as being a gay male representative who spoke on behalf of gay marriage. In reality, Rep. Terie Norelli is the heterosexual female Speaker of the House and she cannot vote on behalf of the bill because as Speaker she presides over the vote. Please correct the article because you are providing false information. I am starting not to trust this site.
Bravo to NH and VT.
And kudos to CT and MA for supporting marriage equality.
Cheers,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Washington CT USA
http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com
This is certainly great news!
My only concern is that a Democrat Governor may veto this bill because of his “personal” religious views!
And he’s a Democrat!!!
You’ve got to be kidding me!
Oh, wait. President Clinton was a Democrat and he signed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law.
Governor Lynch, do the right thing and sign this marriage equality bill into law and undo the damage done to the Democratic party by previous anti-gay executives!
Become an advocate for change! Advance civil rights for minorities!
That’s not very much of a safe margin of votes here folks! If asshole Lynch(a “democrat” no less) decides to veto can we garner a veto override? Can the NH Governor’s veto be overridden at all? Someone fill me in here. Thanks.
About 98% of pedophiles are (ostensibly) straight male family members or close friends of the family; usually they’re also in an opposite-sex marriage (!).
Being gay has NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
How many times do we have to disavow ANY connection with OR support for NAMBLA (if indeed they still exist … I haven’t heard anything about them in a number of years).
Both the pedophilia non-connection and the non-effect on children of being raised by gay/lesbian parents has been studied extensively.
Of course, homophobic religious bigots don’t allow scientific research to get in the way of their kraven kowardly konservative kristianist kultist krazy beliefs (KKKKKK for short) … they also think the earth is only 5000 years old, and that kids rode “friendly” dinosaurs (!).
” ‘God’ said it; I believe it; that settles it!”
It’s no wonder that DRUGS play such a large part in so many religions (chuckle) … that is SERIOUSLY fraaked up (grin) … wonder what THEY’RE smokin’/snortin’?
Personally, I think the amount of anti-depressants and Jello ™ the Mormons consume is probably rotting their BRAINS.
As for the fundies, SURELY *that* amount of pancake makeup HAS to be toxic, never mind the amount of HAIR SPRAY required to keep those Big Hairs erect .
Catholics … well, you CAN’T blame incense poisoning since Vatican II … OTOH, I’m a firm believer that BAD music LOWERS the IQ .
If they weren’t so damn DANGEROUS, kristianists would be hysterically FUNNY.
I’m sooooo happy that I live in Canada…
Hmmm. OK – does anyone know who the Rep is who said he had a lesbian sister and supports gay marriage as a religious good? The broadcast I was watching clearly identified him incorrectly!
Dear Jennifer Vanasco,
I very much appreciate your use of the terms “equal marriage” & “anti-equal marriage” in place “gay marriage” & “gay marriage foes”. This is a huge step towards changing this countries meme regarding LGBT rights.
Regardless of what the word “gay” means to us or the wack-O’s who would keep the human right of marriage from us-The meaning of Equal is an undeniable.
The issue of gay/lesbian marriage is way way too important to allow the sloppy editing evidenced by this story. Please clean up your act.
Shawn: 2/3 of the legislature is needed to override a veto from Lynch. Don’t count the Gov. out yet, I think we genuinely have an opportunity to communicate with him at this point – and we NEED him. Without his support, we’re dead in the water.
NH trivia: it is extraordinarily difficult to amend the NH Constitution so this will not go to the voters as in CA. If we win this, our rights should be safe.