Gay Marriage | New Hampshire | News

New Hampshire House Panel Advances Repeal of Marriage Equality by a Vote of 11-6

The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee today voted 11-6 to advance a bill that would repeal the state's marriage equality law, the AP reports:

NhThe bill would not enact the same civil unions law that was in effect before gays were allowed to marry. That law granted gays all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except in name. The proposed civil unions law would be open to any two adults and would let anyone refuse to recognize the unions. It also would allow anyone to discriminate against the couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.

Supporters said the two proposed repeal bills would not apply to gay marriages that have already occurred, but would stop new ones. More than 1,500 New Hampshire gay couples have married so far under the current law.

Governor John Lynch has said he would veto the bill. Two-thirds majority is required to override the veto.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. This is just a farce. What's the point of a civil union that anyone can refuse to recognize? It's NOTHING, which is the point I'm guessing.

    Could the Supreme Court just rule that gay people are human beings deserving of equality so we can dispense with this idiotic charade?

    Posted by: Dan | Oct 25, 2011 5:35:39 PM

  2. So let me get this-- pardon the expression-- straight.

    New Hampshire legislators, in the middle of an international financial crisis that has brought the US middle and lower classes to their knees, knowing that people need jobs and some financial relief, have devoted themselves to taking away the civil rights of law-abiding New Hampshire citizens-- civil rights these citizens have specifically been granted only two years ago.

    These important, valuable civil rights will be taken away from this group of law-abiding citizens and be replaced with a meaningless contract of "civil union"-- a relationship status which any other citizen can choose to ignore if they say it offends their religiously-based sensitivities.

    Tell me again how this blatant, overt discrimination is NOT based in pure and craven animus against gays and lesbians...?

    This would stand a Constitutional test. This kind of legislation, if allowed to take effect, would be so transparently based in hatred of LGBTQ citizens that it might actually earn us legal Suspect Class status. Which would give us all the civil rights we deserve AND DEMAND.

    Maybe we should let the haters have this one, just so we can finally destroy them.

    And then, Flying Spaghetti Monster willing, as they lay prostrate on the ground crying about having lost the Culture Wars, we can all pass by and spit and piss on them (except that a lot of them probably LIKE being pissed on, so maybe not that).

    What a bunch of assholes.

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000 | Oct 25, 2011 5:39:35 PM

  3. Whoops... Fifth paragraph, opening sentence should read: "This would NOT stand a Constitutional test."

    I am actually very confident that if this made it to the US Supreme Court, even with all those Fascist Opus Dei Catholics sitting on the panel, it would be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Quickly.

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000 | Oct 25, 2011 5:42:21 PM

  4. What is the composition of the NH state legislature. I know that Repubs won a huge majority last year, but is it enough to ensure an override of the governor's veto?

    Posted by: Javier | Oct 25, 2011 5:51:58 PM

  5. It should be becoming clearer and clearer how important is it to make marriage equality happen on a federal level. Too long has this been a nation with such an important civil right being granted or denied based upon which part of the country a person happens to live.

    Posted by: sparks | Oct 25, 2011 5:53:03 PM

  6. Anyone thinking that the current US Supreme Court would find that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is beyond delusional. There are 4 certain votes against, and relying on Kennedy is beyond risky. Moreover, we can't be certain Sotomayor would vote in our favor, or even Kagan for that matter.

    Posted by: Javier | Oct 25, 2011 5:54:03 PM

  7. It's disgusting that the citizens of New Hampshire would allow their legislature to re-legalize discrimination in their state. Way to go NH.

    Posted by: antb | Oct 25, 2011 5:56:12 PM

  8. Will the Replicon hate machine never stop?

    Posted by: christopher | Oct 25, 2011 6:06:51 PM

  9. The Republican party is monstrously evil.
    The Democrat Party is not as evil but woefully inadequate.
    I wish the USA was a democracy.

    Posted by: David | Oct 25, 2011 6:13:46 PM

  10. If we all hold hands and kiss in public every day...they'll go nuts...bash some of us. We sue them for all they have...we get their house...we raise our kids in their house...we piss on their graves. Oh my, I'm getting a woody!!!

    Posted by: paul b. | Oct 25, 2011 6:14:18 PM

  11. The GOP holds a super majority in both the NH House and NH Senate, and can override a veto. In the House the GOP controls 294 out of 400 seats (there are 3 vacant seats) and 19 out of 24 seats in the Senate.

    In today's committee vote, 2 members of the GOP voted against the bill. There's serious questions about whether this bill has the support needed to survive Gov. Lynch's veto. And even though the bill passed through committee we should be see it as a positive that it was not a party line vote.

    Posted by: searunner | Oct 25, 2011 6:28:57 PM

  12. Really? This is beyond bizarre!!

    Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2011 6:31:14 PM

  13. You can't depend on the current Supreme Court to defend any part of the Constitution. Period.

    Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2011 6:35:43 PM

  14. Javier, which of Kennedy's many anti-gay decisions point towards his being against marriage equality? Lawrence? Romer? Martinez? Reed?

    As for Kagan and Sotomayor, same question.

    Posted by: searunner | Oct 25, 2011 6:43:56 PM

  15. Searunner,
    Kennedy didn't stand with us on adoption recently.
    I see no value in assuming anything about the Robert's court, especially considering that the two Obama appointees have never clearly said they support our full human status.

    We let the happy-slappy mentality of the HRC and obamabots destroy our best chance for ENDA in decades. Blind optimism sounds terribly self-empowering, true. I prefer good old fashioned known majorities on our side.

    Posted by: enough already | Oct 25, 2011 7:47:05 PM

  16. Where's them Log Cabin Republican's when ya need 'um?

    Posted by: kodiak | Oct 25, 2011 7:56:18 PM

  17. I think it needs to be Federal. Honestly...what is "gotten" from state marriage besides the headaches of two sets of taxes and the potential repeal of domestic partnership benefits for companies that exist in multiple states one of which allow gay marriage?

    If it was negotiated behind the scenes correctly in DC DOMA could be repealed and all this state by state crap would be moot.

    Posted by: Rin | Oct 25, 2011 8:25:09 PM

  18. Disgraceful. An example of what Republican majorities will attempt: turning back the clocks, stripping away progress. There are many arguments why this bill is bad, beyond the obvious discrimination. It's a time and taxpayer money waster. It sets up multiple statuses in NH and will inspire costly legal battles for years. It's not about the economy--in fact will harm NH's economy and business climate. And it goes against the fair-minded majority in NH, who have no problem with equality and don't want the issue revisited. The only rationale for it is mean spiritedness.

    There does need to be federal equality, no question about that. But achieving and preserving equality in the states is also critical: First, it gives couples some protections now. Second, equality is the best advertisement for equality and speeds the cultural change. Third, state equality is one way to challenge DOMA and is at the heart of several DOMA cases working their way through the courts. The state victories have been crucial in moving forward.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 25, 2011 8:49:31 PM

  19. So, my fiance and I have a wedding planned in NH for February (and we live in Mass). This should be fun...

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 25, 2011 9:00:51 PM

  20. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law

    The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

    "Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

    Posted by: I'm Layla Miller I Know Stuff | Oct 25, 2011 9:04:48 PM

  21. @Enough, you do realize that the court decided not to hear the case and did so without comment. You can only speculate why the case wasn't heard and what Kennedy thought. It's equally plausible Kennedy wanted to hear the case, but there weren't 3 other Justices who agreed.

    So again, specific decisions and specific cases.

    Posted by: searunner | Oct 25, 2011 9:38:32 PM

  22. This sickens and saddens me. Can someone tell me what I can do -- what WE can do -- to fight to keep our rights from being stripped from us?

    Posted by: kit | Oct 25, 2011 10:00:47 PM

  23. New Hampshire Republicans are in lock-step / goose-step with the national Republican party. Here’s a side-by-side comparison of what all 12 presidential candidates now plan for America’s 31 million LGBT citizens:

    Posted by: Ned FLaherty | Oct 25, 2011 11:01:30 PM

  24. can the nature and intent of this incredibly mean-spirited legislation be trumpeted from every possible rooftop? AND, pointing out AGAIN, what andy so correctly highlighted, that this potential legislation was hammered out in lieu of some bill that might have actually BENEFITED the state's faltering economy.

    despite my low, and ever sinking, opinion of the american public, i believe that this, for the vast majority of all but the most DETERMINED gay haters, is a bridge too far. a civil union contract, a legal document, that no person or entity is obliged to honor, REALLY?

    Posted by: bandanajack | Oct 25, 2011 11:54:54 PM

  25. The only good Republican is an unelected Republican.

    Posted by: jimsur212 | Oct 26, 2011 12:34:41 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #990« «