Gay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire

Reason

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
8,674
Gay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire

By NORMA LOVE, Associated Press Writer Norma Love, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 3, 6:27 pm ET

CONCORD, N.H. – New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.

Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.

"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

The New Hampshire law will take effect Jan. 1, exactly two years after the state began recognizing civil unions.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, elected in New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was among those celebrating the new law.

"It's about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens," Robinson said.

"There are a lot of people standing here who when we grew up could not have imagined this," he said. "You can't imagine something that is simply impossible. It's happened, in our lifetimes."

Opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process.

"It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

The House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.

Supporters had considered Wednesday their last chance to pass a bill this year.

The law will establish civil and religious marriage licenses and allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples already in civil unions will automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage."

Churches will be able to decide whether to conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

New Hampshire's decision leaves Rhode Island as the only New England state not to allow same-sex marriages. A bill there is expected to fail this year, as similar ones have in previous years.

___

Associated Press Writer David Tirrell-Wysocki in Concord, N.H., contributed to this report.
 
What Civil Right?

Gays do not have the right to be married. Our rights come to us from God, not the State. When the State declares that gays have the "civil liberty" to be married, they have created a new right which was not endowed on them by their Creator.

Those of you championing this decision by New Hampshire (and other states) need to reconsider the ramifications of it, for if the State declares that gays have an arbitrary right to be married, and they honor the union as such, then there is no telling where they will stop when declaring another arbitrary right for a particular group of people. This is another sad moment for our country, and libertarians who get excited about this need to be ashamed of themselves.
 
I have considered the ramifications of it Theocrat, and I prefer to live in a free world. Live and let live. Liberty is peace.
 
gays do not have the right to be married. Our rights come to us from god, not the state. When the state declares that gays have the "civil liberty" to be married, they have created a new right which was not endowed on them by their creator.

Those of you championing this decision by new hampshire (and other states) need to reconsider the ramifications of it, for if the state declares that gays have an arbitrary right to be married, and they honor the union as such, then there is no telling where they will stop when declaring another arbitrary right for a particular group of people. This is another sad moment for our country, and libertarians who get excited about this need to be ashamed of themselves.

word.
 
The State is Out of Control

I have considered the ramifications of it Theocrat, and I prefer to live in a free world. Live and let live. Liberty is peace.

I prefer to live in a free world, too, but I also believe in separation of Church and State. Marriage is a private affair, which has been entrusted to the Church to decide and declare who and who is not to be married. The State is stepping in doing the Church's work of defining and declaring what a married couple should be, and that all under the guise of "civil liberties"!

You know what. The next time the State declares that people have a right to watch television in their homes, and it begins to tax citizens even more for the purchase of TV sets for every American household, I better not hear any of you who support "gay civil liberties" complain in the least bit about that or any other created right by the State.

By the way, you can't have liberty without morality. That's something you should think about.
 
Gays do not have the right to be married. Our rights come to us from God, not the State. When the State declares that gays have the "civil liberty" to be married, they have created a new right which was not endowed on them by their Creator.

Those of you championing this decision by New Hampshire (and other states) need to reconsider the ramifications of it, for if the State declares that gays have an arbitrary right to be married, and they honor the union as such, then there is no telling where they will stop when declaring another arbitrary right for a particular group of people. This is another sad moment for our country, and libertarians who get excited about this need to be ashamed of themselves.

So, now you DON'T like the State's laws? MAKE UP YOUR MIND, THEO! You said the edicts of the State are as good as Yahweh's (you also cited Romans 13). Pick a side, and be CONSISTENT! Otherwise, you're no better than any of your opponents. :(
 
Can You Not Make Distinctions?

So, now you DON'T like the State's laws? MAKE UP YOUR MIND, THEO! You said the edicts of the State are as good as Yahweh's (you also cited Romans 13). Pick a side, and be CONSISTENT! Otherwise, you're no better than any of your opponents. :(

HB34, time and time again you accuse me of not listening to your arguments, and yet, I can see from your post above that you have not understood my own. I do not support unjust laws or unconstitutional rulings from the State, even though I support the State as a necessary civil institution. Not all laws from the State are bad ones, but many of them are. That does not mean we should get rid of the State, but rather, we get rid of the bad laws as well as those bad people who make the laws.
 
Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

Theo-

Churches are not required to marry gay people.. it is simply treating them equally under the law.

I want to work to separate church and state on this issue, as you know, however if they are going to marry adam and eve, the state is required to marry adam and steve. It's called equality, and it's better than letting the state discriminate. Churches are not required to marry anybody they don't want to.
 
Now if we could only get the state to recognize my marital yearnings (my sister is single again).
 
What's the Standard?

Theo-

Churches are not required to marry gay people.. it is simply treating them equally under the law.

I want to work to separate church and state on this issue, as you know, however if they are going to marry adam and eve, the state is required to marry adam and steve. It's called equality, and it's better than letting the state discriminate. Churches are not required to marry anybody they don't want to.

Where do gays get the "equal right" to marry? It is not from the State! The State gives no rights. It can only protect preexisting rights as given to us by God. There should be no law nor decision by the State to legalize any marriage. That is where the inequality issue comes in because the State has to make arbitrary decisions on who gets married or not.

The State discriminates all the time on sexual preferences, which is why such things as incest, polygamy, and bestiality are illegal. Now I ask you on what basis are those sexual preferences forbidden while same-sex unions are considered okay? Not all sexual acts are moral nor legal.
 
The State discriminates all the time on sexual preferences, which is why such things as incest, polygamy, and bestiality are illegal. Now I ask you on what basis are those sexual preferences forbidden while same-sex unions are considered okay? Not all sexual acts are moral nor legal.

Marriage has nothing to do with sexual preference. It has to do with the state tracking cohabitation of individuals, taxes and altering various contractual obligations.

I could get married to a girl and never have sex. Or I could get married to a girl and have a dog and have sex with the dog instead. Why doesn't the state discriminate against marriages where the couple is abstinent? Or where one of the partners is actually in a sexual relationship with another individual and the couple is only using it for tax benefits?

This reminds me of a joke I heard back when judges first legalized gay marriage in California some months back. Upon hearing the news that gays could get married, an individual exclaimed that they were very excited that now that gays can get married, they can finally have sex!

All we are saying is that any two individuals should be able to get married because the state and federal government give benefits for being married. They need to get rid of the benefits OR if they refuse to get rid of the benefits, they must at least spread them out to individuals equally, to whoever is willing to sign the contract. Dogs can't sign contracts, so humans can't get married to animals. The bestiality thing is fairly common in the media, but it is a completely ridiculous argument.
 
Last edited:
Marriage does not belong to the state; it is not up to them to sanction it. I would hope those in the libertarian movement would support the liberation and privitization of marriage. The state has done nothing to preserve it and they are redefining an age old institution as if they had a right to define it in the first place. Furthermore, the benefits of reduced taxation should not be unequally extended to couples of any kind. This is movement is not an affront to heterosexuals, it's an affront to unmarried individuals.
 
Back
Top