Will N.H. Civil Unions Affect Primary?

Law Allowing Same-Sex Couples To Enter Unions Goes Into Effect Seven Days Before Voting

(CBS)  New Hampshire Democrats have given the Republicans a potent issue that's ready to burst into the open just before the leadoff presidential primary: gay civil unions.

There's a risk: Republicans who decide to run with the issue in hopes of energizing their GOP base could also be seen as gay-bashers and alienate the state's political independents. There are a lot of those in New Hampshire, and they can choose either party's ballot in the Jan. 8 primary, exactly one week after the new civil unions law takes effect.

The law won't come in quietly.

"We hear reports of couples planning ceremonies for 12:01 on New Year's Eve. I'm certain this will be something that is in the news," said Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. "It will remind moderates and independents in New Hampshire that they didn't plan on civil unions and same-sex marriage when they voted for Democrats last year."

Civil unions and same-sex marriage were essentially nonissues in the 2006 campaign for governor and the Legislature, then GOP-controlled. But the issue gained prominence - and unexpected success - when Democrats seized control of both houses of the Legislature that November.

Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is already hinting at a final-week television and direct-mail campaign intended to tap opposition among core GOP voters to same-sex unions.

"Of the four leading Republican candidates, only one supports a Federal Marriage Amendment," a Romney direct mail piece told voters during the last week of November. The same piece said that "in 2004, McCain broke with Republicans and voted with Senators Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy against a same-sex marriage ban."

So far, Romney has had the most to say about the issue. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani supports gay rights and stayed with a gay couple after separating from his second wife. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, is amenable to civil unions. Arizona Sen. John McCain acknowledges he is uneasy when talking about the subject.

Romney often says he's against discrimination but cannot embrace same-sex civil unions. He says, "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child."

Could it be an effective wedge issue, exploiting voters' own discomfort about the issue?

"I don't think it will work, not in New Hampshire," said Charlie Black, a McCain adviser and a veteran of the past three Republican presidential campaigns. He is advising McCain not to make civil unions a key part of his campaign's final weeks.

A big question is which primary the independents will vote in, Republican or Democratic.

Registered independents - or undeclareds, as they are called in New Hampshire - outnumber both Republicans and Democrats in the first-primary state. Though polls have indicated that most plan to vote in the Democratic primary, a blowout on either side in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses could prompt many of them to vote in the New Hampshire primary in which they think they can make a difference.

There has been no public polling to suggest civil unions would be a huge mover, but the increased visibility of the issue could be a boon for Romney as he tries to solidify the last bits of support among his party's base. He trails Huckabee in Iowa and is in a tight race with him in New Hampshire, according to the latest AP-Ipsos polling.

University of New Hampshire pollster Andrew Smith said more Republicans than Democrats opposed civil unions in a survey last spring. Most of the opposition came from older voters - who traditionally vote and are on direct-mail and activist lists.

Republican campaign advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing internal strategy, know that New Hampshire independents might be turned off if the campaigns go too far. But they said not raising the issue might brand a candidate as weak among party activists.

"There are lots of people who are tolerant of other lifestyles who nonetheless don't believe in same-sex marriage and think that Democrats in New Hampshire made a mistake when they allowed that this year," said Cullen, the state GOP chairman.

On the other hand, when Democratic Gov. John Lynch signed the law in May, some conservatives predicted he would take a hit in the polls. It didn't happen, and in July the second-term governor still had 76 percent support, according to a University of New Hampshire poll for CNN and WMUR-TV.

[rowdytexan2]

I don''t think allowing civil marriages among gay and lesbian people poses a threat to anything. They''re not trying to promote their lifestyle, they are just trying to get the same rights as any other married couples. If they are living together and supporting each other as a family, what harm can there be in allowing them the same tax deduction and insurance coverage as male female relationships? It doesn''t mean our society is saying woo hoooo, let''s all be gay!

Do you really think that by opposing their marriage union and now allowing it that their lifestyle is going to go away, thus society just doesn''t have to deal with it? We have worn blinders for years and persecuted them because they happen to be different. It''s the same thing as persecuting those that don''t have the same religious beliefs. Or have a different color skin. Or any other kind of persecution.

The world has become globalized, we cannot continue to live in fear and paranoia of the way peoples are different.

As a nation, we have already torn down the ''idea'' of the traditional family. There are more people living single lives supporting children by themselves than anywhere else in the world. We are having to hunt down fathers that refuse to support their children and prosecute them for non-payment. How much sense does that make?

It is intolerance and hypocrisy that has brought us to the very place that we are in right now. Would you have us all live like clones?

[realpatriot1]

denn034,

Setting aside your own personal feelings about homosexuality for a moment, do you really think that denying people the ability to be monogomous won''t result in more indiscriminate *** and consequently greater spread of disease?

If one partner has AIDs and gives it to the other and they are monogomous the infection stops there. If gay couples are prevemted from haing a partnership they will still have *** and the disease will spread.

Also, try telling people they can''t be with the one they love and see what effect that has on suicides. I''m sorry, but many of your arguments don''t make sense and are just rationalizations to not accept the relationships of others. That''s your right but it doesn''t constitute a compelling argument.

Insults aren''t valid arguments and neither are irrational fears that have no basis in fact.

[denn034]

"Get a grip your heterophobe."
Posted by mudrose

I like that.

[denn034]

The attempt to silence people with the intolerant bigot epithet is a direct threat to the very democracy that cannot exist without dialogue. The liberals that advocate this nonsense are a direct threat to society and democracy. Period! Anyone who thinks that a Bible that was written during a time that didn''t accept homosexuality could possibly support such can only do so by divorcing it from the historical context from which it arose and that takes it out of context. Psychologists see no problem with this narcissistic nonsense and that''s why I oppose psychology as the threat to society it is. Letting gay persons join the military doesn''t advocate their lifestyle but, advocating their lifestyle like civil unions and gay marriages do can only lead to more AIDS and STD infections and suicides and that''s not a good thing! The willingness of liberals to abandon society to AIDS and STD infections, suicides, and high poverty inducing AIDS and STD drug costs is troubling. We need a marriage amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman only and to stop advocating the liberal''s anything goes mentality that can only result in everything going in the end.

[denn034]

Let me make this so simple that even a newborn moron can understand it. The liberals say that anyone that opposes homosexuality is an intolerant bigot. One only needs to replace the word "homosexuality" with another word to see the error in that logic. Anyone that opposes polygamy is an intolerant bigot. Anyone that opposes pedophilia is an intolerant bigot. Anyone that opposes bestiality is an intolerant bigot. Do you see how overly broad and general that nonsense is. Such an anything goes mentality will cause everything to go in the end if it isn''t kept in check.

[kansas1946]

It will also remind people that the lefties are hell bent on destroying the traditional family. That''''s why g/ay marriage is so important to them. It divides the people, families, children, the culture under the guise of fairness and equality. Ugh.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mudrose at 08:53 AM : Dec 14, 2007

*********************************************

That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard. Your family must be awfully shakey if who someone else marries affects it.

Myself personally, I have been married forty years to the same man, I have two daughters that are married to men and they have traditional children. Most of my friends are married and intend on staying that way. The "destroying families" bunk is just the bumper-sticker slogan of ministers trying to scare the be-Jesus out of their flocks so they will give more money. It is nonsense.

[mudrose-2009]

THE PROBLEM with endorsing g/ay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults'''' desires.

The debate over same-s/ex marriage, then, is not some sideline discussion. It is the marriage debate. Either we win--or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex marriage poses to marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope, it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is, in itself, a disaster, we have already lost the marriage ideal.

Same-s/ex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen "good." It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

[mudrose-2009]

I''''m not insulting anyone - I''''m saying stop spitting out fear quotes and proclaiming heterosexual marriage isn''''t in trouble. I find it quite the opposite - male to female marriages have made the INSTITUTION a MOCKERY! You all should be ashamed.......
Posted by simonsez40

And you are going to rescue it? Hahahahaha. Hate to tell you but all you little lefties with your laws are breaking down the family. No-fault divorce. Loosening parental controls on children - give them condoms and birth control pills in middle school. Let the little girls cross state lines for abortions without parental concent. No spanking! Are you getting it, stupid?

[mudrose-2009]

Mudrose your arguments are based out of pure fear of what you know NOTHING about.........go concentrate on the real ills of this world and strive to LEARN and Increase your knowledge instead of spitting bigotry and hatred because you are afraid........
Posted by simonsez40

You people are just adorable. When you don''t like what you hear, everyone is a bigot. Everyone else doesn''t know what they''re talking about. Only you understand all the intricacies of society. The know-it-alls. Lefties are the know-it-alls about everything. They are the elitists. Hahahaha. Get a grip your heterophobe.

[denn034]

"I believe Iran and several other Middle Eastern nations rule by their religious sects and beliefs - if you wish to FORCE citizens to follow your religious beliefs and adhere the basis of your constitution on those values......

Then move to Saudia Arabia, Iran.....there are many to pick from....."
Posted by simonsez40

How does not wanting to promote AIDS, STDs, high suicide rates, poverty inducing health care costs constitute forcing my views on anyone?

[denn034]

"Don''''t insult me with YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible - if we all read the bible and got the same meaning then there wouldn''''t be 33,000 different PROTESTANT Denominations......"
Posted by simonsez40

It''s a historical fact that the Jews of OT times and the Christians of NT times opposed homosexuality. Bible scholars by and large insist that scripture was interpreted literally except where it''s obviously figurative at the time of writing so, interpreting it otherwise divorces scripture from it''s historical context. Period! You''re more interested in perversion than truth. That''s your problem.

"As of right now the word MARRIAGE means nothing to half of Americans"
Posted by simonsez40

That''s irrelevant and doesn''t in any way detract from the fact that heterosexual marriage throughout human history hasn''t hurt anyone. Period!

"Bottom line is you are using the bible and your bigotry to deny basic and equal rights to a majority of the population."
Posted by simonsez40

All I said was the Bible and God were on my side not yours. An easily demonstrable fact as Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27 shows. Do you really believe that homosexuality was acceptable during OT and NT times? Sorry but, only a moron would believe that contrary to the overwhelming testimony of human history.

[simonsez40]

I believe Iran and several other Middle Eastern nations rule by their religious sects and beliefs - if you wish to FORCE citizens to follow your religious beliefs and adhere the basis of your constitution on those values......

Then move to Saudia Arabia, Iran.....there are many to pick from.....

[simonsez40]

Denn - then start quoting you scripture at MARRIED couples and start spreading the gospel to make marriage laws stronger and apply laws that would make it harder to DIVORCE.

As of right now the word MARRIAGE means nothing to half of Americans. Bottom line is you are using the bible and your bigotry to deny basic and equal rights to a majority of the population.

Don''t insult me with YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible - if we all read the bible and got the same meaning then there wouldn''t be 33,000 different PROTESTANT Denominations......

[denn034]

"I''''m not insulting anyone - I''''m saying stop spitting out fear quotes and proclaiming heterosexual marriage isn''''t in trouble. I find it quite the opposite - male to female marriages have made the INSTITUTION a MOCKERY! You all should be ashamed......."
Posted by simonsez40

No evidence or valid argument, again. Insults and inflammatory rhetoric doesn''t make your reasoning any less invalid. Common sense, the 2002 World Almanac, and the entirety of human history are on my side NOT to mention God (see Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27). Get used to it!

[simonsez40]

I''m not insulting anyone - I''m saying stop spitting out fear quotes and proclaiming heterosexual marriage isn''t in trouble. I find it quite the opposite - male to female marriages have made the INSTITUTION a MOCKERY! You all should be ashamed.......

[simonsez40]

AND? What does the spread of AIDS have to do with two people wanting the right to have a CIVIL UNION? Again you prejudices (shallow and based in fear) don''t hold up any argument on two adults wanting to consummate their relationship legally.

Is this your only argument? We could also point out that the divorce rate is over 50% in the United States with Southern States having a higher average - and that would include teen pregnancy, incest etc......

I can point out ugly facts about straight and heterosexual marriages as well all day long.....

[denn034]

"DENN I read your post and cracked up at the ignorance! Geez COMMITTED couples are the ones that want CIVIL UNIONS - you speak of an orgy like atmosphere that can be created by both Straight and GAAY folk......your reasoning is ludicrous! Again the ignorance that is rampant through society truly amazes me.....no wonder BUSH won (questionnable) twice. Lord help us all!"
Posted by simonsez40

Insults aren''t valid arguments or reasoning. Period!

[denn034]

"You''''re nuts! Again read and educate yourself denn! AIDS has no bearing on civil unions - notta! Again a way to get the masses into a frenzy. AIDS will be here whether civil unions are allowed or not........and I''''m sure there are many CHEATING ADULTERERS IN MARRIAGES THAT SPREAD AIDS.......
Posted by simonsez40

The 2002 World Almanac that I have has a statistic that plainly shows that 70% of all AIDS infections result from homosexual contact between gay men. You may want to crazily ignore that inconvenient truth but, I''m not going to. The only opposite *** couples that spread AIDS are one''s where one or both are bisexual or drug abusers ONLY! Only an incompetent, crazy, idiot would say otherwise. Period!

[simonsez40]

DENN I read your post and cracked up at the ignorance! Geez COMMITTED couples are the ones that want CIVIL UNIONS - you speak of an orgy like atmosphere that can be created by both Straight and GAAY folk......your reasoning is ludicrous!

Again the ignorance that is rampant through society truly amazes me.....no wonder BUSH won (questionnable) twice. Lord help us all!

[simonsez40]

Posted by denn034

You''re nuts! Again read and educate yourself denn! AIDS has no bearing on civil unions - notta! Again a way to get the masses into a frenzy. AIDS will be here whether civil unions are allowed or not........and I''m sure there are many CHEATING ADULTERERS IN MARRIAGES THAT SPREAD AIDS.......