Archive for Friday, March 27, 2009

House approves gay marriage, sends bill on

March 27, 2009

Advertisement

— The state House on Thursday voted narrowly to make New Hampshire the third state to allow gay couples to marry.

The bill, which passed the House 186-179, next goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it — a position that spokesman Colin Manning reiterated after the vote.

Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.

Currently, only Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry. The Vermont Senate sent a gay marriage bill to the House this week, but Gov. Jim Douglas says he will veto it if it reaches his desk.

Comments

MeAndFannieLou 6 years ago

I think gays should be allowed to marry, but they should have to take periodic, random drug tests. . . . . . .

(joking)

jonas_opines 6 years ago

For some reason I knew STRS would be the first poster on this thread.

Wait, it's because he always is, on virtually every one.

beatrice 6 years ago

Downward slide, indeed. How dare we recognize differences among people and acknowledge loving relationships between two consenting adults. Shame on us for being such an open-minded society. If we keep this nonsense up, next thing you know we will be giving women the right to vote!

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years ago

Does anyone actually edit this paper? "House" - you mean the Kansas house? Congress? Oh... no, you have to click on the headline only to realize it's a story about the NH state house.

KansasVoter 6 years ago

What's the big deal about gay marriage? I just don't get it. How are they hurting anyone? How does gay marriage affect anyone except for the married couple?

staff04 6 years ago

I think STRS is afraid that the Gay is contagious...

denak 6 years ago

Good for New Hampshire. I hope this passes in the Senate and the Governor allows it to pass into law.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

I'm just affirming what humanity has affirmed for millennia. Marriage is for one man and one woman.

LiberalDude 6 years ago

Agreed, nicely done New Hampshire. I wonder how that loser Judd Gregg feels about this.

I still think that government shouldn't recognize marriage, though. Government should only recognize civil unions to keep the religious aspect out of it.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

What else is there after this? The Far Left is claiming homosexual "marriage," abortion on demand, cradle-to-grave healthcare, government-run schools, race-based college admission standards, a created right to take 50% of my income, a requirement that I wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle, taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda machines called NPR and PBS, a removal of reasonable religious expression from public venues, condoms in our high schools, environmental extremism, denial of the secret ballot by union bosses, secular humanism run rampant, tax dollars for ACORN, a tolerance movement that's completely intolerant, more social programs than can be counted, and much, much more.

I'm sure I've neglected to include plenty here, but take note. The conservative and moderate majority in this country is tiring of the liberal steamroller in this country that's hell-bent on adulterating every aspect of traditional society.

sinverguenza 6 years ago

Ah STRS. You sure are great. Really just something else!

LiberalDude (Anonymous) says…

"I still think that government shouldn't recognize marriage, though. Government should only recognize civil unions to keep the religious aspect out of it."

I agree completely. Doesn't seem the "majority" and civil rights can come together without tossing out "marriage" at this point. People can still have their marriages and those marriages will still be sacred (for both hetero/homo couples, if they so choose) but there wouldn't be any fuzziness about whether the government is advocating policy on the basis of religion any more.

beatrice 6 years ago

Quite the rant there strs. Based on the results of the last election, however, obviously there is much about the radical conservative agenda that the liberal and moderate majority has tired of as well.

Not that I care to tackle all of your points, but I am curious -- How exactly is not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcyle a traditional aspect of society?

tonymontana 6 years ago

What difference does it make? Whether you're gay or straight, marraige is an illusion without any tangible existence. If you're together, you're together.

sinverguenza 6 years ago

Bea -

I think he's talking about personal responsibility. He probably doesn't support the proposed seat belt law amendment, either.

The difference between people like STRS and myself is how we define "personal responsibility."

See, to STRS, it means "I don't have to wear my helmet because I'm not hurting anyone but myself!"

Whereas to me it means, "If not wearing my helmet could cause financial hardship for my fellow citizens and emotional hardship for my family and loved ones and physical hardship for myself after I'm paralyzed, then I should wear my helmet and be glad that myself and others could face a fine for not doing so as a means to encourage us to do the right thing."

Of course, what STRS fails to recognize is that even if the law says he has to wear a helmet, he doesn't have to do it. The law says we all have to wear our seat belts and we don't do it.

Either way, we're both taking "personal responsibility" for our actions. It's just I find my definition is a lot less hurtful to our society at large.

average 6 years ago

"I'm just affirming what humanity has affirmed for millennia. Marriage is for one man and one woman."

No it hasn't. Far more societies in history have have plural marriages, at least for the male elite, than pure monogamy. A minority, but same-sex unions have not been that uncommon in history, either.

I find it funny when Christians worry about the slippery slope toward multiple partners. The Bible, if they bothered to read it, is chock-full of multiple wives and concubines of the favored-by-God kings.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

Without being able to subjectively otherize everyone different from him, STRS and his ideology will cease to exist. STRS is the epitome of a bigot.

JayCat_67 6 years ago

I always kinda liked that "Save Marriage" slogan a couple of years ago. Of course, expensive or no health care, and a lousy economy has placed a heckuva lot more stress on my marriage than gay folk wanting to get married, so I really don't know what the f*** those "Save Marriage" types were talking about. Oh well...

tonymontana 6 years ago

you're exactly right 75. I dont.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

You forgot "homophobe," kryptenx. I wear your insults as a badge of honor.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

sin,

I choose to wear a helmet when I ride, and I wear a seatbelt when I drive. I do this because it's the responsible thing to do. However, our love for freedom should exclude us from allowing the government to protect ourselves from ourselves.

People are too quick to think that good ideas that apply to them should become the law for everyone.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

I would like to make out with you STRS, just to watch you squirm. Where can I meet you at, honey?

gccs14r 6 years ago

You should skip the individual bigot merit badges and just wear the swastika, STRS. You're already there in spirit.

sinverguenza 6 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

"However, our love for freedom should exclude us from allowing the government to protect ourselves from ourselves.

People are too quick to think that good ideas that apply to them should become the law for everyone."

Well hot damn, STRS! Sure could have used you on the "let's drug test the poor" threads!

tonymontana 6 years ago

Common social/cultural structures and norms - who needs em?

Amen to that, 75!

Lisa Medsker 6 years ago

"People are too quick to think that good ideas that apply to them should become the law for everyone"

But of course... Kind of like marriage being defined as "one man, one woman" works for one person, it should become law for all, right?

Interesting that marriage is the only religious ritual that the law gets involved in...

viewfromahill 6 years ago

I look forward to the day when yam can marry yeoman, spam can marry snowman.

beatrice 6 years ago

"However, our love for freedom should exclude us from allowing the government to protect ourselves from ourselves."

Aren't we talking about the freedom to marry? Mighty selective in your views on freedom there strs, don't ya think?

Tell you what, I will go ahead and support the right for others to not wear a helmet and splatter their brains all over the pavement if they choose, if you in turn will support the right for people to love one another in a committed and loving relationship that is recognized by the government even if they happen to be of the same gender. Okay? If you don't agree, then you aren't being truthful to yourself with your stand on freedom and personal responsibility.

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

"(Why is it so many gay men are gorgeous?)"

I don't know; maybe the competition is just a little stiffer when you are playing for the other team. :P

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, don your hardhats--the sky is apparently falling.

One day, our planet will be visited by aliens who will find that our civilization has collapsed and is no more. They'll probably search and search and search for the cause of the calamity before finally concluding that our civilization met its demise due to a lack of values and moral fortitude. Their search will lead them back to one event--the legalization of gay marriage.

sinverguenza 6 years ago

Literally LOL on that one, Redwood!

AjiDeGallina 6 years ago

STRS is a failed American, a failed man consumed by hate.

He has a strong need for attention but do to a social disability does not understand the difference between positive and negative attention so he goes for the path of least resistance...being a dork.

Give the guy a break, it must be so sad and miserable to be such a failure.

Bob031800 6 years ago

I guess I think about it like this, two men or two women can have a ceremony now and declare to their friends and family that they will be together forever. They can even do it in some churches. What they can't do is have the state recognize that union.

So then I am thinking why does the state recognize the union of a man and woman. I believe they do because they know that it is in the best interest of a nation for men and women to marry, have children, and raise them together to be contributing members of society.

Ultimately a loving father and mother are in the best interest of children, even the best two men cannot replace the vital importance of a loving mother in the home with her children, and the most loving two women, cannot replace the importance of a strong loving father at home guiding his kids. No matter what pop culture tries to say, ideally kids need a mom and dad that love them and each other.

Kids that are not raised in homes with both a loving mom and dad do have more challenges than kids that don't. Statistics prove that children, especially boys, raised without active dads in the home are more likely to end up in prison and involved in destructive behavior.

As a nation it is important for us to encourage men and women to marry and have children, and to STAY married and bring their children up. Take the emotion out of it. It is not as important to the fabric of our culture to encourage two men to get married, or two women, or to encourage a man to marry two or three women, or to encourage multiple partners who love each other to be able to have the state recognize their union.

The purpose of government is not to recognize your love and make you feel good, but to encourage actions that support the long term needs of sustaining a growing. Sounds harsh, but that's my thoughts.

lawthing 6 years ago

Technically we all start out as female for the first 6 weeks of life!

So technically we are all in a Lesbian marriage! Now it can be legal!

Wow next thing ya know they will be letting Blacks marry whites...and Marijuana will be legalized...

What is the world coming too???

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

Yep, I'm sure if you asked someone in the 16th century post-colonial United States whether "morals" and "values" have degraded from their time to now, then there probably is not much doubt about their answer. Hell, they would likely flip their lids in response to today's fashion trends. What I don't understand is folks in our modern times attempting to say that, as STRS seems to believe ("And our downward slide continues."), our society is somehow in some sort of catastrophic moral free-fall. Some call this societal decay, and others call it societal growth. Obviously, I tend to go for the latter, with the exception of the rampant greed that has promulgated within our system of capitalism.

Now, if we could all go through life seeking happiness without impeding that quest for happiness in others, then I think we would actually get somewhere. Yeah, it's rather idealistic, but it is when people think they can disseminate their own relative morality throughout all of human culture that I take offense. Yeah, it is common sense not to kill or steal, but when it comes down to issues like gay marriage, the only solid piece of contrary evidence people seem to evoke is "tradition" and scripture. I'll tell you first off that "tradition" is time sensitive, and I'll tell you secondly that no two human cultures on this planet necessarily see things eye-to-eye, nor should they. This is the beauty of the American experiment, but some seem to be at severe odds with that philosophy.

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

I guess that would be the 18th century US. I was waaaay off the mark on that one...

JayCat_67 6 years ago

"(Why is it so many gay men are gorgeous?)"

I worked with a guy that carried a picture of his naked boyfriend in his wallet. My lady coworkers all shared your sentiment.

boltzmann 6 years ago

Bob031800 (Anonymous) says…

"So then I am thinking why does the state recognize the union of a man and woman. I believe they do because they know that it is in the best interest of a nation for men and women to marry, have children, and raise them together to be contributing members of society."

So by that logic, then why does the state recognize the marriages of childless heterosexual couples beyond reproductive age? It seems that by your argument you should be supporting a ban on this as well? Why single out gay people?

I'm sorry Granny, but Bob031800 says, tough apples, you can't marry the hot widower down the hall because he doesn't think that such a union contributes to society - and Bob what is best for you. I know it sounds harsh, but that is the way he feels.

drederick_tatum 6 years ago

Buttsex is disgusting. Don't need it. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah is a true story. Scientific evidence shows it happened almost exactly like the Bible says.

On the other hand nothing in the Bible is against lesbians. Lezzies are hot. Hot hot hot!! So we need plenty of lesbians but they need to be the HOT kind.

TacoBob 6 years ago

But wait, isn't the vaunted Mr. Obama against gay marriage?

What to do, what to do.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.