Chris Dodd | Election 2008 | Gay Marriage | New Hampshire | News

New Hampshire House Passes Civil Union Bill

New_hampshireBy a vote of 243-129, the New Hampshire House voted to pass House Bill 437 which would give same-sex couples registed in a civil union the same rights as married couples.

According to the Associated Press, the House debated for two hours before voting. If the Senate passes the bill and Governor John Lynch signs it, it would take effect January 1, 2008. Lynch, who has not yet made public his feelings about the bill, said, "I will weigh in on it after I make up my mind on it."

DoddMeanwhile, elsewhere in New Hampshire, presidential hopeful Senator Chris Dodd told Concord High School students that folks should think about how they might react if their own child were gay.

Said Dodd: "We ought to be able to have these loving relationships. They may grow up as a different sexual orientation than their parents. How would I want my child to be treated if they were of a different sexual orientation?"

The AP adds: "Dodd, who opposed a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to man-woman unions, said he supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. Asked afterward how he distinguishes between the two, he said there really isn’t a difference."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "Asked afterward how he distinguishes between the two, he said there really isn’t a difference."

    So what is the big fucking deal then? If there is no difference between "marriage" and "civil union" then why support the FMA or any other anti-same-sex-marriage legislation?

    Damn I hate these people! They want to play with semantics while REAL PEOPLE are waiting for their relationships, property and families to be protected.

    If you oppose same-sex marriage, then you are a BIGOT. Period. No middle ground, no Mr. Nice Liberal. We should no longer tolerate being talked about like we don't exist or (worse) that we don't matter.

    Dodd should suck it up and just say it: "I support the right of same-sex couples to marry and for those marriages to be equal under the law to mixed-sex marriages."

    What is so freaking hard about that?

    Posted by: Jonathon | Apr 4, 2007 2:05:04 PM


  2. New England seems the most sane place in the US to live... provided they get rid of Susan Collins in Maine.

    Posted by: W=Wimp | Apr 4, 2007 2:14:05 PM


  3. Baby steps. I can be patient.

    I'm not trying to stir up the racial thing, but the analogy is apt:

    Blacks had to be freed from slavery before they could go to school. They had to go to black schools before desegragation took place. It would be nice to skip steps, but it looks as if they're still needed.

    Once civil unions are accepted, we'll get marriage. There'll always be people against it (heck, there are still people who thought they were better off with slavery).

    Posted by: karashi | Apr 4, 2007 2:22:10 PM


  4. Gah. DesegrEgation. Sigh.

    Posted by: karashi | Apr 4, 2007 2:23:08 PM


  5. This is probably going to receive an unpopular response but I'm happy as long as we're taking steps towards towards full citizenship. All in all, gay stigma will probably never disappear. Even now, despite many claims for the contrary, black people still face a nice (sic) amount of discrimination. People will still claim that the problems of the few are representative of the majority.

    So lets praise New Hampshire, hope that the South secedes again and float off into space.

    Posted by: Damon | Apr 4, 2007 4:18:36 PM


  6. Things are moving forward in NH.

    Posted by: Jack! | Apr 4, 2007 5:26:42 PM


  7. If there isn't a difference, then why not support MARRIAGE? Politicians are tools.

    Posted by: FanGirlHater | Apr 4, 2007 6:32:43 PM


  8. If being gay is normal, natural selection requires that a species that is incapable of reproducing (i.e., homosexuals) would eventually become extinct.

    If it isn't normal, get help. There is no known cure for many psychological abnormalities, yet patients still seek treatment to minimize or eliminate the undesired behavior. I'm sure there are plenty of mental health professionals to address your problems.

    Posted by: Tomi | Apr 4, 2007 7:36:56 PM


  9. Let's be real about it and admit that civil unions pose second-class status on same-sex relationships. I am pragmatic enough to know that our families need the protections that civil unions can provide, but also committed to full equality to settle for nothing less than marriage. What's clear is that we have to be bold and honest enough to say what we want. We want, need and deserve full equality under the law. I don't care if this makes straight people uncomfortable. Its not my responsibility to make them comfortable.

    Why Marriage Matters: http://bloggernista.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/why-marriage-matters/

    Posted by: Bloggernista | Apr 4, 2007 8:16:05 PM


  10. I'm not homosexual, but I am from New Hampshire and very excited about this positive step forward in our state, and hope that it is followed someday (soon) by gay marriage. I think New Hampshire is often seen as being more conservative than it really is, and I'm very happy to be a citizen of only the second state to allow civil unions (assuming it goe forward) without court intervention. I do wish more politicians would be more honest about this.. the only reason liberal Democrats won't support gay marriage is because they're afraid of the ramifications, but more importantly, I wish ass hole christians would go fuck off and worry about controlling their own sick lives.

    Posted by: FrankLloydMike | Apr 4, 2007 8:47:37 PM


  11. Fascinating how a state like New Hampshire has voted to allow civil unions and NY, California, Oregon, et al, remain an abyss.

    Posted by: Chris Holden | Apr 4, 2007 9:06:22 PM


  12. Why do gay haters pretend or assume that we want ALL people to be gay, leading to extinction? We are ONE aspect of humanity, as normal as blond hair (even though not everyone has that either).

    Plus, gay people can and do have kids the "old fashioned" way. We just don't enjoy the sex that needs to happen to achieve them :-)

    Posted by: Gregg | Apr 4, 2007 9:07:20 PM


  13. Why is it that the assumption is that those who reject homosexuality are Christians? Why is it that if someone abhors the behavior the assumption is that they hate the person and are "homophobic?" You liken it to blonde hair? Well that just proves my point. Blonde hair is the result of adaptations to environmental changes faced by early man. What environmental conditions caused the adaptations to cause humans to seek same sex engagements? None. Adaptations don't happen to satisfy sexual "enjoyment." They happen to ensure the perpetuation of the species.

    Posted by: Tomi | Apr 4, 2007 10:15:13 PM


  14. With all due respect to those who won't compromise on marriage, you're right. Your argument is logically, legally, and morally correct.

    However, we live in America with lots of fucked up people, and we fucked up this fight. I hate to admit it, but it's where I stand.

    Why? "Marriage" is bullshit. I can go down to the local gay church and find a gay priest (or rabbi) TODAY in any major city and get "married in the eyes of God" or whatever bullshit I want to believe from a spiritual point of view. Hell, I could do that years before anybody started proposing to alter the Constitution to deny my rights.

    If we only took the more intelligent road, DE-POLITICIZE "marriage" as most idiots view it, and do just what they accuse us of...that is, be sneaky and undermine "marriage" by seeking only to enshrine every important stupid thing that the heteros take for granted, and then throw it in their faces and say, HA HA, we're married!

    Guess what? Many of us don't give a shit to be called married. I/we are not my/our parents. I'll tell you what though...I've been with my partner for seven years, and I want all the hospital visitation, tax, inherritance, and ever other fucking right that any pitiful Britney Spears slut can get just by getting "married" in Vegas. I don't give a fuck about the religious aspect, and if I did, I could be "blessed" right fucking now with my partner, and it wouldn't mean a goddamned thing to the government (which supposedly separates church and state) of the United States.

    Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Apr 4, 2007 11:43:14 PM


  15. Oh Tomi, you troll.

    Try this one on. Gay people exist to help keep humans from overpopulating and killing themselves off. We keep things in balance.

    That's one theory.

    But I'm glad to know that you are the ultimate source of knowledge on why things exist, and what causes differences in species. Please explain male-pattern-baldness for me.

    Also, I'm glad to know that you feel such disdain for gay folks that you hang out on our blogs, post comments, and return to review and repost. All those sexy flashy men in the ads on these pages must not be too "abhorrent" for ya.

    Posted by: Gregg | Apr 4, 2007 11:45:41 PM


  16. As a gay man, I've got to admit I don't have a lot invested in the concept of gay marriage. Come off it! It may work for some, but it would not for me. I think most of us miss the point: that the word "marriage" carries with it the connotation of a religious, sacramental relationship. Who needs to go there? Most religions squirm about sexuality, much less homosexuality, and if you're Catholic and a practicing gay man you'd better be in a confessional daily and buying up every available indulgence. If you love your partner, I suggest you become domestic partners and assure each other benefits, insurances, estate planning, etc. For Christ's sake, just spend a buck and get a good lawyer --- he or she will assure you whatever equal rights you think you're missing. I actually support civil unions over gay marriage, as a more evolved, more mature approach to legitimizing a gay relationship.

    Dodd is a smart guy, and would make an excellent president or vice president. Far better than most of the front runners, who seem to choke on any discussion of gay rights and/or the "morality" of being gay. I hope the Democratic party can find its spine --- I'd go for an Edwards/Dodd ticket anyday. If the frivolous, opportunist front runners (Hillary and Barack) continue to dilute the scene, and if Democrats don't galvanize and focus we'll have to digest four years of Mitt Romney. And if you think gay rights are threatened or ignored now, try Mormon politics.

    Posted by: Richard | Apr 5, 2007 12:12:58 AM


  17. Tom, the fact that gay people have existed and do exist implies that there is an evolutionary reason for gayness. If natural selection makes homosexuals extinct, and that’s normal, then why are you on a Gay website telling this amazing news to a bunch of Gay people? It is 2007; Why aren’t gay people extinct? And, you can’t think of any evolutionary reasons that the enjoyment of sex might have contributed to natural selection? Tom, you have never had sex.

    Posted by: Mike | Apr 5, 2007 12:23:56 AM


  18. Tomi you don't know anything about evolution. And yes you are anti-gay, you hate gay people. You question the humanity of gay people. What else could it possibly be except hate?

    Posted by: Jack! | Apr 5, 2007 2:01:03 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Archbishop Under Police Guard After Anti-gay Comments« «