NH Gay Marriage -- Another Domino Poised To Fall

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html)

Looks like NH will become #6 later today.

Gay marriage legislation gained momentum today in New Hampshire, with the passage of a revised bill by both the state House and Senate.

Governor John Lynch is expected to sign the bill into law later today, which would make New Hampshire the sixth state to allow gays to marry.

Shortly after 4 p.m., the House voted 198-176 for the bill. The bill had been passed earlier in the day by the Senate.

Lynch said in mid-May that he would sign a bill legalizing same-sex unions as long as the Legislature made it clearer that religious groups would not be forced to conduct "marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs."

If Lynch signs the bill, Rhode Island will be the only New England state to bar gay marriage.

New England has been a real leader on this issue.

[NT1440]

Woo Hoo!

[Queso]

Wow. Well done New Hampshire! By this rate the number of gay marriage states will be in double figures by this year's generic Winter Solstice festival that goes by other names :)

[leekohler]

Yes! Thanks NH! 44 more to go! :)

[Eanair]

Looks like NH will become #6 later today.

Will become is now became.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html

:)

[abijnk]

Are there other states that are close to acting on this as well?

[Queso]

New York has started the process. I think Rhode Island aren't too far away either. At least a majority of the people there support it

[mactastic]

Will become is now became.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html

:)
Well, sort of. Now become is still will become until January. Six months should give people plenty of time to plan the ceremony of course.

And this is another legislative victory as opposed to a judicial one.

[Eanair]

Well, sort of. Now become is still will become until January.

I meant the governor signed it just recently. :)

When I checked before, he didn't sign it yet.

[CalBoy]

It looks like 6 in '12 is going to become 6 in '09 at this rate. :)

However (not wanting to be the negative Nancy here or anything) this bill allows religious organizations with a charitable and educational intent to not provide health benefits to same-sex spouses. I agree with the language that permits churches to not perform weddings (as if they didn't have that power already), but allowing employers to not provide benefits they would provide to other couples seems blatantly wrong.

[Eanair]

However (not wanting to be the negative Nancy here or anything) this bill allows religious organizations with a charitable and educational intent to not provide health benefits to same-sex spouses. I agree with the language that permits churches to not perform weddings (as if they didn't have that power already), but allowing employers to not provide benefits they would provide to other couples seems blatantly wrong.

Agreed.

This is the bit that I'm not incredibly happy with. But the rest is great news.

[leekohler]

It looks like 6 in '12 is going to become 6 in '09 at this rate. :)

However (not wanting to be the negative Nancy here or anything) this bill allows religious organizations with a charitable and educational intent to not provide health benefits to same-sex spouses. I agree with the language that permits churches to not perform weddings (as if they didn't have that power already), but allowing employers to not provide benefits they would provide to other couples seems blatantly wrong.

That will have to be worked out later, as I'm sure it will. In the meantime, let's celebrate! :D

[CalBoy]

Agreed.

This is the bit that I'm not incredibly happy with. But the rest is great news.

It seems strange to me that Lynch wanted this language in the bill. Surely he knows that any court would look at the legislative intent (equality), the New Hampshire equal protection clause, and the absurdity of such a loophole, and strike it down right?

[Queso]

It looks like 6 in '12 is going to become 6 in '09 at this rate. :)
The '12 bit is to allow for the last New England holdout I'm afraid. Currently the Speaker of the House, the Governor and the Senate President in RI are all ardent Catholics, so there's no legislative support on any angle. However, the Governor (Don Carcieri) can't stand again in 2010 and both front runners to replace him are gay marriage supporters. The latest poll show 60% of Rhode Islanders support marriage equality.

I think we'll see states in other regions get gay marriage before then, but it will happen :)

[CalBoy]

The '12 bit is to allow for the last New England holdout I'm afraid. Currently the Speaker of the House, the Governor and the Senate President in RI are all ardent Catholics, so there's no legislative support on any angle. However, the Governor (Don Carcieri) can't stand again in 2010 and both front runners to replace him are gay marriage supporters. The latest poll show 60% of Rhode Islanders support marriage equality.

I think we'll see states in other regions get gay marriage before then, but it will happen :)

I'm not so sure. Rhode Island Catholics are quite different from your average Catholic. Even if the leaders in the Legislature aren't supporters, overwhelming majorities in both houses are. Even a governor's veto would be rather impotent as the Democrats have supermajorities in both houses. If I was a betting man, I'd say that Rhode Island will follow suit by the end of the year (and it will be done over a veto).

[mactastic]

It seems strange to me that Lynch wanted this language in the bill. Surely he knows that any court would look at the legislative intent (equality), the New Hampshire equal protection clause, and the absurdity of such a loophole, and strike it down right?
My guess? It's CYA on his part. He likely has future political aspirations, and would rather have the courts rebuke him than the voters.

[Queso]

I'm not so sure. Rhode Island Catholics are quite different from your average Catholic. Even if the leaders in the Legislature aren't supporters, overwhelming majorities in both houses are. Even a governor's veto would be rather impotent as the Democrats have supermajorities in both houses. If I was a betting man, I'd say that Rhode Island will follow suit by the end of the year (and it will be done over a veto).
I hope you're right. I'd like nothing better than to be wrong on this one, but even if it doesn't happen this year it's not far off.

[mactastic]

I meant the governor signed it just recently. :)

When I checked before, he didn't sign it yet.
Oh I know. Personally I wouldn't count it as a complete victory until two homosexuals can walk in and actually procure a marriage license; although I agree this is a significant step. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought otherwise. :)

[CalBoy]

My guess? It's CYA on his part. He likely has future political aspirations, and would rather have the courts rebuke him than the voters.

I had that suspicion as well, but it doesn't improve my opinion of him any (not that it should :p). I would have rather had him decline to sign the first bill and let it become law without his signature. Not that any politician would have done that, but I can dream right? :p

I hope you're right. I'd like nothing better than to be wrong on this one, but even if it doesn't happen this year it's not far off.

Rhode Island has been grappling with this for a long time now. They recognize Massachusetts marriages, and with the population's general support, I don't see any major obstacles left for it this year (or even in 2010 if it comes to it). With all of its neighbors now in the gay marriage camp, I think the Rhode Island General Assembly will finally act, if only to avoid being too horribly shamed. :p

[bobber205]

It's so sad that we even have to celebrate this at all.

It should have never been an issue.

The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all in case the "social conservative" among us forgot...

[mactastic]

I had that suspicion as well, but it doesn't improve my opinion of him any (not that it should :p). I would have rather had him decline to sign the first bill and let it become law without his signature. Not that any politician would have done that, but I can dream right? :p
Well, considering Lynch was the one who rejected the last version of this bill because it didn't have this language in it, it makes sense that he wouldn't just let this become law without his signature. He had that option last time, and took the rather unusual step of demanding this compromise language.

One wonders at what point national politicians find it safe to call for marriage equality. Probably not until 35 state minimum are down.

[mactastic]

oops... double post

[CalBoy]

One wonders at what point national politicians find it safe to call for marriage equality. Probably not until 35 state minimum are down.

I wouldn't go by a state minimum, but rather by electoral distribution. If support for same-sex marriage and gay rights continues on its current trajectory, by 2012 or 2014 a slim majority of Americans will be behind the idea of full marriage equality. It usually takes a strong majority for a politician to take a position on any issue, so my guess is that by 2016 national politicians will feel perfectly safe in being public about their support for equality.

More significantly, however, I think a Republican Primary contender in 2016 will be a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage and this will be the issue's death knell, much as racial discrimination met its end when a Southern Democrat became the Civil Rights movement's best ally.

[mactastic]

More significantly, however, I think a Republican Primary contender in 2016 will be a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage and this will be the issue's death knell, much as racial discrimination met its end when a Southern Democrat became the Civil Rights movement's best ally.
Perhaps, but that will be the death knell for said primary candidate. If you can't get the right-wing base mobilized, all hope is lost; and that in large part means religious conservative foot soldiers. I don't see their opposition to marriage equality changing even by 2016.

It's a position conservatives *should* endorse, namely the government staying the hell out of your private life, but as we've seen the GOP seems willing to bend that rule to suit them.

[KingYaba]

It's a position conservatives *should* endorse, namely the government staying the hell out of your private life
If that's the case then conservatives ought to be calling for the end of marriage licenses. That would help to get government out of people's private life.

[CalBoy]

Perhaps, but that will be the death knell for said primary candidate. If you can't get the right-wing base mobilized, all hope is lost; and that in large part means religious conservative foot soldiers. I don't see their opposition to marriage equality changing even by 2016.

My guess is that the religious conservatives won't be happy, but that the party will have no choice in order to form a viable coalition. If they don't get onto the gay rights bandwagon by 2016, when most young voters who currently don't vote consistently but will once they "mature," the party will not be able to retain a majority for the considerable future. Like it or not they're going to have to create a platform that includes the gay "agenda," stem cell research, and protecting the environment.


It's a position conservatives *should* endorse, namely the government staying the hell out of your private life, but as we've seen the GOP seems willing to bend that rule to suit them.

Well of course, the day of true conservatives has long since passed.

[mactastic]

If that's the case then conservatives ought to be calling for the end of marriage licenses. That would help to get government out of people's private life.
I mean in terms of being up in one person's private life more than another person's. You know, that famous equality they're always bitching about when they're on the perceived short end.

But of course, you knew that. :rolleyes: