Comments on: New Hampshire gay marriage bill delayed

By: C.S.

C.S. — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:22:38 +0000

I want to thank both redmenace and Morgan for responding to my questions about the NH revisions!

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:11:37 +0000

I agree with one of the other commentators. We should do what many western European countries do. All marriages must be civil and performed at the local town hall by the mayor or some other person so designated. For those who want a religious component, they usually have the civil marriage solemnized in a church, temple or mosque by choice, its not mandatory. In France, no religious cult can actually marry anyone, but only solemnize the civil marriage. We should have that here and shut the religious bigots up once and for all.

By: redmenace

redmenace — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:26:30 +0000

This is the original bill that passed, AN ACT relative to civil marriage and civil unions HB0436.:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hb0436.html
AN ACT relative to reimbursement of mileage for judges and marital masters and relative to civil marriage and civil unions, HB0310: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0310.html
And what the Governor of NH did, AN ACT affirming religious freedom protections with regard to marriage and prohibiting the establishment of civil unions on or after January 1, 2010, HB0073: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0073.html

By: RICK N NICK

RICK N NICK — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:51:48 +0000

WHAT THE F…………….!!!!!!!!?????????

By: Douglas in Canada

Douglas in Canada — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:21:09 +0000

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.”

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:10:47 +0000

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.

By: C.S.

C.S. — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:51:07 +0000

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.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:46:13 +0000

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.

By: ScottNH

ScottNH — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:16:48 +0000

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.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:13:19 +0000

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.