By 365gay Newscenter Staff 05.20.2009 4:53pm EDT (Concord, New Hampshire) Revisions in marriage equality legislation demanded by New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch before he signed the bill were stonewalled in the House Wednesday, after passing in the Senate.
The original marriage bill passed the legislature earlier this month, but Lynch said he would veto it unless it offered better protections to churches that oppose same-sex marriage.
The revisions approved earlier Wednesday in the Senate by a 14-10 vote would have made it clear that churches, church organizations and staff are protected from lawsuits if they refuse to permit same-sex marriages.
But when it went to the House in the afternoon, it was defeated by only two votes – 188-186.
The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise with the governor instead of killing the bill.
“While the House voted not to adopt today’s version of the amended marriage bill by a very close vote of 186-188, clearly the members of the House want to see marriage equality passed based on the strong vote not to kill it entirely. The House will now convene a conference committee to hash out differences in good faith in order to schedule another vote perhaps as soon as in the next two weeks,” said HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse in a statement.
Among those in the House visitor’s gallery for the vote were New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and Mo Baxley of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.
Last month, the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released a statewide poll that found 55 percent of New Hampshire residents support gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry, while 39 percent oppose it.
If a compromise is reached and Lynch signs the bill it will make New Hampshire the sixth state to permit same-sex marriage and the fifth in New England.
Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...
There is no “compromise” to make. It was defeated for no reason. All of the religious freedom issues exist whether or not gay marriage is legal. They have to do with ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS IN THE PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES and all the legal conflicts between religions and gay ceremonies or events exist WITH OR WITHOUT GAY MARRIAGE
The people we need to complaining to about the failure of today’s vote are those on our side, many of whom voted against the amendment. I listened to their reasoning, and I DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY with their decision to vote against the amendment and continue delaying justice. Gay rights groups in NH should let their voices be heard loud and clear by our supporters in the legislature so that they don’t stab us in the back again. Shame on them.
The House should have adopted the governor’s recommendations. Why would any of us marry in a church that discriminates against against gays and lesbians? They have jeopardized the chances of New Hampshire of becoming the next state to legalize same-sex marriage. We were so close.
The issue is not whether a church would be forced to marry a gender-concordant couple, which they would not be regardless of what the law said. The real issue is whether a hospital or adoption agency affiliated with a church would have to treat a married couple as such when couples try to use these services.
But what exactly did the Senate revisions say? It is impossible to make a judgment on this situation with no information provided as to the specifics.
Oh yes, we have to make damn sure that these religious country clubs have the full power to discriminate.
New Hampshire is a done deal. Let’s focus our attention on the next battlegrounds. New York, New Jersey, and DC this summer; California, Washington, Rhode Island, and Maryland in the fall and 2010. Imagine marriage in a dozen states in another 18 months…
Agree with you Mike, but whenever you have Nasty Relgious Right wing Taliban looking to double cross us, we should NEVER let our guard down in ANY state even those which we “feel” we have equality…
Yes it will be so nice to have dozen states in 18 months, that will give me some time to get a fiance’. LOL
I thought this “amendment” was actually an add-on to a completely different bill. How long can the original marriage bill be held before hitting the governor’s desk, forcing him to either veto it, sign it or allow it to become law without his signature?
Classic delay tactics.
In the case of New Jersey becoming the next state. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. Gov. Corzine is in deep political trouble and may even be ousted by two republicans one of whom could easily replace him. Either way, they’d veto any marriage equality legislation.
New York is iffy. Not a done deal with several conservative democrats vowing to vote with republicans to defeat the bill.
Rhode Island, forget about it. A heavily catholic state.
How can you say NH is a ‘done deal’ when the Governor said he would veto legislation without his amendment (which was just rejected by the House) AND when the legislature is running up against the end of its session. Without quick resolution this bill dies (’oops, we tried, but we ran out of time, shucks’) and it will most likely be 2011 before we can try again. I’m hearing optimism, but it’s not clear to me why. This isn’t ‘done’ at all.
ScottNH, etc.
I am writing Govenor Lynch today to strongly protest this delay in justice and equality. CT and VT got their equality in a similar way having to appease some right-wing zealots with this kind of nonsense. The new wording Lynch demanded passed the Senate and almost passed the House except for those 2 votes and it would then have gone onto Lynch to sign.
That is where I am coming from and this is so not right.
Let’s all write the NH gov and the legislature to tell them to get this done with all due diligence and speed for the good of all in NH esp. for those who have waited so many years for the right to marry.
I apologize to everyone here for saying it’s a “done deal” when it turned out that it wasn’t.
But what, precisely, was the “new wording”? What did the revision/amendment say? What is it that the NH Senate passed and the House rejected? Does anyone have information on this essential point? I’d appreciate it very much if someone could post the specifics here.
C.S,
Lynch would not sign NH marriage into law without protections added for NH churches, etc that did not want to officiate for same-sex weddings. He said he would sign only sign it into law on that basis and back the issue went to the NH Senate.
Any one in NH who knows exactly what wording the NH Senate OKed on this NH marriage equality issue and that almost passed the NH House? We read that the NH House passed the matter back to the NH Senate after 2 in the House voted no with a request that the NH Senate negotiate with the governor on this issue.
I don’t know how it works in the USA, but in Canada, I believe that each province issues licenses to people who perform marriages. This makes them representatives of the state. Unfortunately, many of these are employees of religious institutions. That’s where one dilemna occurs. By state law, they are required to “not turn anyone away” based on sexual orientation. But their religious affiliations prevent them from performing such marriages.
Maybe we should adopt a system where EVERYONE gets married at city hall, and the church limits itself to providing a blessing. That way, the religious staff are not involved in the MARRIAGE discussion at all.
They need to learn that the church is NOT necessarily representative of it’s political region, and they DON’T have the right to impose their beliefs on non-believers or “other-believers.”