Comments on: NH gov mum on marriage bill

By: Richard - Las Vegas

Richard - Las Vegas — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:34:01 +0000

Oh, great! Yet ANOTHER story on gay marriage! Are we, as gays and lesbians, incapable of having concerns about any other issue in our lives? How about Swine Flu? Or the recession? Or job losses? Or foreclosures and the subsequent loss of our homes? Or the war in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Rep. Virginia Foxx? Or the rip-off by the gay travel industry on gay and lesbian travelers? Are we incapable of having ANY other thoughts other than GAY MARRIAGE? Please give us some credit for having the ability to think about – and even comprehend – other stories!

By: tjr

tjr — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:55:31 +0000

Gov. Lynch is obviously conflicted. It would be better for him politically to sign this bill or just do nothing and let time lapse for it to become law since the polls show support for marriage equality. This is very intriguing and we may well see New Hampshire as the 5th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:23:09 +0000

Yes, Phil in CO,

In New Hampshire, the Gov. has the option of signing a bill into law, vetoing the bill, or he can simply do nothing and allow the bill to become law without his signature after 5 days (not including holidays or Sundays). However, if the Legistlature adjurns before the 5 day waiting period, then the bill also dies. This is the “pocket veto”.

The present NH Gov. Lynch has allowed 2 bills thusfar to become law. He did not support them, but did not feel strongly enough to veto them. It’s kind of a way to avoid responsibility for a law without criticism for vetoing it.

I am guessing he will do just that.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:31:51 +0000

It’s bad enough when a Republican leader makes these kinds of remarks…. but he’s a Democrat.. Just shameful…

But he’s also a politician, and if 55% of the NH populace supports it… we may be pleasantly surprised.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:14:54 +0000

If the Governor vetoes this bill, passed democratically by both houses, and supported by the majority of citizens, that will give gays and lesbians the upper hand when it comes to the issue of “one man overriding the will of the people”. Either way, we win. Either we get same-sex marriage, or the anti-marriage side loses the “will of the people” argument, which will seriously damage their case in the future.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:08:47 +0000

“To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions.”

At least this part makes sense. Although, I would replace “civil unions” with “marriage.”

By: Russ

Russ — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:08:42 +0000

I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago.

No, Governor Lynch, civil unions are not equal. They are to borrow a famous phrase “inherently unequal.” If anyone disagrees with this, I would suggest they give up their marriage for a civil union.

By: Jennifer Vanasco

Jennifer Vanasco — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:43:45 +0000

Thanks for the catch! I had just gotten email from someone in Ohio – must have been on my mind!

By: Phil in Colorado

Phil in Colorado — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Does anyone know if the gov. has the option of just letting it become law without his signature if it reaches him?

By: Chris Sullivan

Chris Sullivan — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:31:25 +0000

Pretty sad when we count count on a Democratic governor to help us out. If he vetoes this, there will certainly be a major backlash in Maine’s GLBT community.