« Cleveland, Ohio Domestic Partner Registry Begins Today |
Main
| Diego Luna: Gael Garcia Bernal is a Better Kisser than Sean Penn »
05/07/2009
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch Speaks About Gay Marriage Bill
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch spoke briefly Wednesday evening about the marriage equality bill that awaits his signature:
"I'm going to talk to legislators and I'm going to talk to the people of New Hampshire and ultimately make the best decision I can for the people of New Hampshire."
Posted 10:04 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, New Hampshire, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Lincoln would stand up for Equality. What will Gov. Lynch do?
Posted by: Wayne | May 7, 2009 10:22:31 AM
Call and email the Governor to encourage him to sign marriage equality into law.
http://www4.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp
Posted by: Bill | May 7, 2009 10:48:27 AM
This idea that you have to "talk to the people" to determine the validity of law is a misinterpretation of Democracy by which America is screwing itself repeatedly. My civil rights are not subject to the "opinion" of "the people".
Posted by: Strepsi | May 7, 2009 11:07:31 AM
Pure speculation on my part, but it sounds like he's testing the winds before committing either way. What he likely left out is a probable strategy session with his advisers and/or attorney general to figure out the likelihood of a referendum or constitutional amendment being used if he signs the bill. Does anyone know the set up in NH on overturning bills? There's no term limits on him so that could be a factor, unlike with Baldacci in Maine. Also, there's some sort of weird Executive Council in NH that checks his power on certain actions. I guess like a board of directors. If he has any political enemies there, their position on the bill could possibly influence him as well. At least he did not say no outright. That seems like a positive sign.
Posted by: James C. | May 7, 2009 11:16:36 AM
Certainly sounds like he is planning to sign, or at least to not veto. "I'm going to talk to the people" is politician code for "I'm about to reverse my previous position."
Posted by: Pender | May 7, 2009 11:28:55 AM
The people of New Hampshire won't give a damn one way or another as long as it doesn't increase their property taxes any further, and he knows this. He's just stalling and needs a swift kick in the ass. Write him ASAP! (See above link for comments to the governor through his website.)
Posted by: Andalusian Dog | May 7, 2009 11:52:24 AM
@Strepsi: actually, what's going on in New Hampshire has nothing to do with civil rights. No determination of a civil right to marry has been put forth by a court there.
That said, there's a common sense that gays should have a right to marry, and I hope Gov. Lynch sees that, for his sake, because a veto will haunt him for the rest of his political career, and his life.
Posted by: Bruno | May 7, 2009 11:55:11 AM
does "the people of nh" include the gays
Posted by: rick in rville | May 7, 2009 12:03:11 PM
does "the people of nh" include the gays
Posted by: rick in rville | May 7, 2009 12:05:26 PM
Gov. Lynch wont make up his mind in a matter of hours or days, his hesitation only shows that he is considering the political consequences of his actions. I would venture to say that this is not the best scenario for our cause.
Posted by: Rafael | May 7, 2009 12:10:12 PM
As far as I know, New Hampshire does not have initiative or referendum (as opposed to Maine). What it does have is two-year terms for its governor, and no term limits, meaning Lynch is always in election mode. That's why he's so hesitant, in comparison to Maine's governor, who can't run again.
That having been said, Lynch won his last election with almost 70 percent of the vote, so I doubt he'd be in danger whatever he chooses to do on this bill.
Posted by: Ben | May 7, 2009 12:20:43 PM
@Bruno
This has everything to do with civil rights. The court's role is in protecting (and some times recognizing) rights, not creating them. The rights are inalienable, as put forth in the Declaration of Independence and the NH constitution.
Sometimes it takes a court to protect our right to civil marriage, but in this case, blessedly the legislature is defending our rights instead of the courts.
And for those who don't believe civil marriage is a right: See Loving v Virginia, 1967. The US Supreme Court declared marriage to be a fundamental right in that ruling.
Posted by: Danny | May 7, 2009 12:55:50 PM
Governor, remember your states motto:
Live Free or Die!
Posted by: John | May 7, 2009 1:16:30 PM
oh for the era of politicos who led instead of followed -- LEAD YOU ASSHOLE!
Posted by: David B. 2 | May 7, 2009 7:45:57 PM
Calling something a civil right and thinking that it's a civil right is not the same thing as it being a civil right. Calling it inalienable does not make it inalienable. I am with Bruno on this: I tend to agree that the right to marriage should be extended, but it is absurd to suggest that the founders had anything like this in mind in the enumerated rights.
Loving v. VA and interracial marriage is an inexact metaphor. Interracial marriage has nearly always been recognised over thousands of years and many cultures. The time period and geographic extent of its being forbidden is rather small - it just looms larger because it is nearer to us. Gay marriage, OTOH has not been recognised anywhere until recently, and then quite narrowly. Perhaps it should be. But that isn't the same thing.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | May 8, 2009 8:58:29 PM