Gay Marriage | New Hampshire | News

BigGayDeal.com

New Hampshire Lawmaker Attempts to Repeal Marriage Equality by Reinstating Civil Union Law

Presser_bates

New Hampshire Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) is sponsoring an underhanded bill that would roll back the state's marriage equality law, replacing it with civil unions, and then allow voters to weigh in (in a "non-binding" way) about whether they like that or not.

Bates' measure would allow same-sex couples already married to stay married.

Watch Bates' press conference, AFTER THE JUMP...

BatesSaid Bates to the Concord Monitor:

"I'm ready to accept the will of the people. Now let's see if those on the other side of this debate will do the same. Or are the homosexual activists only interested in pushing through their own agenda, without regard for the will of the people of this state?"

At Think Progress LGBT, Zack Ford explains how Bates' new amendment would play out:

The legislature would vote to repeal marriage equality and implement the civil unions law as it was passed in 2007, a change that would not take effect until March 31, 2013. This would require a super majority, because Gov. John Lynch (D) has promised to veto any bill that takes rights away from same-sex couples.

In the meantime, voters would have the opportunity to respond to a non-binding question as to whether they agree with the decision. The vote would have no legal impact, but would indicate to lawmakers essentially whether voters like the repeal or not.

If voters approve the repeal, it proceeds as planned next March. If they reject it — and polls show a strong majority opposes Bates’ bill — then the legislature would have to act again before March to overturn its own repeal, but would be under no obligation to do so.

NHThe question as it would appear on the ballot conveniently does not address marriage: "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"

Bates' plan, of course, would let him ignore the results if they don't go his way and proceed with the repeal.

The Concord Monitor explains the 'non-binding question':

Bates's bill, which is set for a vote next Wednesday, now includes a question to be put before New Hampshire voters on the November ballot: "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"

"In November, we can find out, unequivocally, once and for all, what the citizens of New Hampshire believe and what they want regarding marriage and civil unions in our state," Bates said. "There will be no more guessing, no more arguing or debating over dueling polls, just the actual voice of the people telling us what their will is on this issue."

Watch Bates' press conference, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. YES!!! We don't have ANY regard for the will of the people and we are only interested in pushing through our own agenda. It's not for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. toolbag. Go die.

    Posted by: Greekguy | Mar 14, 2012 8:58:58 AM


  2. Well, when our agenda only affects US, I see no problem. This is about OUR RIGHTS, not yours, not any heterosexual.

    Why do you get to decide what our marriage rights are when they have zero affect on yours?

    Amazing how blind these idiots are to logic.

    Posted by: johnny | Mar 14, 2012 9:02:49 AM


  3. "The people" demonstrate their will by electing their representatives to government - whether it is at the state or national level. Perhaps, if Rep. Bates is to serve as an elected official in his state, he should first demonstrate at least a rudimentary understanding of how our democracy works.

    Posted by: T. Jefferson | Mar 14, 2012 9:33:16 AM


  4. T Jefferson excellent point. I wish you had the opportunity to say that to the anti marriage douchebags that normally use that exact inchoate argument on TV. The will of the people has already been exercised...end of story. That's how democracy works. We need to keep repeating this over and over again.

    Posted by: paul | Mar 14, 2012 9:37:25 AM


  5. Seriously? If everyone's gaydar isn't clanging out of their heads over that pic.... We would have had equality years ago if it wasn't for all the closeted gays pushing for bans on this or that. In less than six months this ass will be apologizing "for all the harm he's done and will fight for equality from here on out......"

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Mar 14, 2012 9:53:34 AM


  6. Memo to Rep. Bates: Gay activists aren't pushing anything through. Marriage equality is the law in NH. It exists, few care. It's done. What he's attempting to push through (setting up 2 classes of citizens) obviously mirrors CA and would obviously be found unconstitutional. I love it when bigots try to pretend that overturning existing law to create an unconstitutional law is somehow fighting against those evil activists. You're the activist, dude! Own it.

    Posted by: Ernie | Mar 14, 2012 10:10:54 AM


  7. If only GOProud would have existed when he was a young, aspiring politician, he wouldn't have succumbed to such a deep level of self-loathing...only a moderate one.

    Posted by: kpo5 | Mar 14, 2012 10:24:19 AM


  8. If smiting Sodomites as much as politically feasible really is the Will of God, how come his supposedly dutiful servants so frequently and expediently link hands with the Father of Lies to "get 'er done"?

    As a non-Christian, I can't begin to guess "what Jesus would do" on a host of contemporary issues, but from what I've heard of him, I find it hard to believe he'd resort to trickery and deceit to further his agenda, no matter how unpopular it's become in this supposedly "degenerate age."

    Posted by: Shelly | Mar 14, 2012 11:08:18 AM


  9. That guy is a gay as the fields of May!

    Posted by: Jack M | Mar 14, 2012 1:13:12 PM


  10. Has there every been any polls on taxing the churches these assholes come from? I for one would vote for that!

    Posted by: doug105 | Mar 14, 2012 2:48:53 PM


  11. You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    You cannot put civil rights to a vote.
    ETC.

    Posted by: Pointed | Mar 14, 2012 4:05:58 PM


  12. She ain't the butchest, that's for sure.

    Posted by: scotsyank | Mar 14, 2012 4:35:34 PM


  13. Does Rep. Bates live with his mother in a house on a hill, next to a motel with his name on it?

    Posted by: Skip | Mar 14, 2012 5:31:45 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Gillian Anderson Comes Out as Bisexual« «