New Hampshire Legalizes Gay Marriage

(AP)  New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed into law a bill making the state the sixth in the nation to allow gay marriage.

Legislators approved the measure earlier Wednesday, incorporating religious protections at the governor's behest.

Lynch 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.

The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House - where the outcome was more in doubt - followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote.

"If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness," Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.

New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though Maine opponents hope to overturn that state'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.

New Hampshire opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process that required three bills.

"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.

Lynch, a Democrat, personally opposes gay marriage but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."

Lynch said he would veto gay marriage if the law didn't address churches and religious groups.

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 earlier version said "charitable and educational" instead of "charitable or educational."

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.

The vote was supporters' last chance this year in New Hampshire.

[eyesC]

When I read another state or nation has legalized gay marriage thou christian , I do not get upset. In fact everytime another comes out of the closet with the statement " I'am Gay" . Inside me I rejoice for I know our end is near. Sign of the times, Our Lord Jesus cometh.
God Bless You all!!!!!!!

[sean58z]

The West Coast should travel to New Hampshire for gay and lesbian marriages. Why tolerate censor by religious conservatives operating the government? Their only real interest is denial and misanthropy.

[LawyersGuns-n-Money_]

Where in the Bible does it state that it's wrong for two women to engage in sexual acts with each other?
Posted by toooldtovote at 7:24 PM : Jun 3, 2009

You won't find it in the bible. One of the biblical authors prophesied video!
...and the Spice Network!

[LawyersGuns-n-Money_]

Where in the Bible does it state that it's wrong for two women to engage in sexual acts with each other?
Posted by toooldtovote at 7:24 PM : Jun 3, 2009

You won't find it in the bible. One of the biblical authors prophesied video!

[germanmom]

noloyalisti: that $75 million was a the total of spending on both sides. The no on 8 people collected more money. Stick to the facts, please.

[ttinsly]

I love all these nuts that go on and on and on about homosexuality as if they are on some moral high ground. The first thing they try to do is link it to pedophilia. If only I could write to you about all of the homophobic men that were not violent towards me when I was an adolescent but also mixed their taunts with perverse comments that would (if not for how they tried to make it degrading) be taken as sexual harassment if done to girls. If these so-called moral pharisees really cared about pedophilia they would focus on this behavior alone. They would not try to link it to homosexuality; and then lose focus of the issue when it applies to what goes on in their families etc. I know of 3 preachers that molested their children, 2 girls, 1 boy. All were straight. The same for a priest that molested a boy. (Also, a lot of straight dads to their sons ). Do you right wingers really even care about this issue? I would say no. Especially in the case of the Fundamentalists that teach children in the Jesus military camps to always preserve secrets and not talk bad about people. I wonder what they really mean by that; or why so many are against Children's rights. It seems to me they should be concerned about the violent male role model they worship along with the materialist culture that treats people like objects as well as our cultural penchant for violent sexuality. No, in this context, along with all of the world's problems today, Same-sex rights, Employee non discrimination, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying laws in schools, should not be something they are fighting against. To fight these laws, and claim you are christian or even moral is like saying hatred is moral. Well, I guess many of these people's parents or grandparents may have liked the KKK so I guess that much is consistent.

[LawyersGuns-n-Money_]

I know you think, I'm a despicable low life that should be expunged from the face of the earth. I think you mean well but are misinformed.
Posted by NEWCO123 at 1:57 PM : Jun 4, 2009

Whoever said you were a low life? If you ever go around maiming those who don't hold the same views as you, then yeah, you're despicable. You haven't given any indication that is what you do, so far be it from me to judge you as such.

As far as the red herring, as you call it, I was thinking more of Dominance and Submission rather than Don't Fear the Reaper.

[rrozsa]

LOL I think you're right. My memory is either failing in middle age or I'm old enough to remember when only 75% of dentists recommended crest. I used to always wonder how many dentists they polled. 5? And what did the other one recommend?
Posted by aChangeOfIdeas at 9:37 AM : Jun 4, 2009

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

I always figured the 5th dentist didn't want to reduce cavities in his patients' teeth, since those are his bread and butter! ;-)

[rrozsa]

Posted by rrozsa at 8:48 AM : Jun 4, 2009

YES! And they can be. The problem is, and you know this as well as I, existing laws say things like "married couples" and "surviving spouse" and "relative by marriage", and "married, filing joint"...

The endless stream of challenges by corporations and people to "civil union" would clog courts for generations. In simple point of fact, extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples winds up being the most expeditious and streamline.

It solves ALL problems with one stroke. There are already laws preventing the "marriage" of close relatives so you needn't craft a whole new set of laws there. Then too, all of the property rights and transfers needn't be changed.

It's just so much cleaner, legally speaking, to change the "LEGAL" definition of one word. The religious and social connotations remain untouched and the same.
Posted by bannednancy at 9:12 AM : Jun 4, 2009

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

No one is arguing that redefining "marriage" is a lot quicker and more convenient than trying to adapt the current system to allow for civil unions. But the latter is what must be done, in my opinion. No, it would not be able to happen overnight. But I, and many others like me, feel very strongly about what marriage is, or is NOT. Get that? We're talking EMOTION here. " Marriage is a holy estate"; "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder" are phrases that have largely become out of fashion, since many couples write their own ceremonies now, but they are among the hardest-coded, solid tenets at the very heart of our Judeo-Christian foundation. The overwhelming majority of Americans feel as protective of the "sanctity of holy marriage" as feel about how the American flag should be treated, or not raising their voices to their mommas.

Sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the easiest or quickest thing to do. In my opinion, if gay couples want equal rights under the law, they need to push for legal recognition of rights under civil unions.

Even I, a Southern Baptist dating all the way back to "cradle roll", could live with that.

[LawyersGuns-n-Money_]

By sheltered I mean you were never attacked, right?
Posted by NEWCO123 at 12:26 PM : Jun 4, 2009

Well, if by attacked you mean spent any time in prison, then no, I haven't been attacked. But if you're basing your observations on the conduct of the prison population that has more to do with Blue Öyster Cult than it does with being homosexual.

Yeah, about those studies. The first prety much equates homosexual behavior as being the driving factor for same sex pedophilia. What it doesn't tell you is over 97% of the offenders are male. That says more about the Blue Öyster Cult thing than it does about tendencies.

But let's also look at the degrees of sexuality all the way from the alpha heterosexual male to the alpha homosexual male...and all those in between. We'll at least start there so you can at least admit it's not a choice.