NH House approves gay marriage; sends to Senate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Eanair, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #1
    Here's hoping that NH will be the 3rd state to allow gay marriages!

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ia0uHb3aRkxBGOF4NgaTGIYjKFhwD975TDF80

     
  2. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    Surely this wasn't the only difference, right?
     
  3. Eanair thread starter macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #3
    I'm not sure. While I know that any civil unions from any state aren't granted federal marriage rights, I'm not sure how all the individual states legislate civil unions and marriages - if a state marriage grants state rights that a state civil union does not.
     
  4. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
  5. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #5
    Even if it was, marriage as a religious thing shouldn't be defined by law

    Either make it civil unions for all(and marriage becomes a religious/personal thing without legal meaning) or marriage for all(legally speaking, the religious part doesn't change much there)
     
  6. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Agreed. If the right has a problem with gay marriage, then you just need to leave marriage as a religious thing, and redefine the legal union of two people.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Go New Hampshire! You guys are getting it right! :D
     
  8. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #8
    Why exactly should a legal code surrender the use of one its oldest terms just to appease a temporarily loud group?

    We both know that within the next 20 years, gay rights will have gone the way of the Civil Rights Movement, as younger voters and members of our society really don't care about someone's sexuality and are very supportive of the idea of same-sex marriage.

    There's no reason there can't be coequal use of the word, just as there is now. Some churches, for example, might still refuse to recognize an interracial marriage, even though the law clearly does. I don't see why we can't adopt the same standard for same-sex marriage.

    On topic: If New Hampshire's governor doesn't veto the bill, it will be the first state in the Union to have same-sex marriage via the legislative process and not a court ruling, which in some ways is an even more momentous thing than In re Marriage Cases or Goodridge v Department of Public Health.
     
  9. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    Yeah, but I think I read the Gov promised to veto it. Then it needs 2/3 of senate, correct?
     
  10. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #10
    You're thinking of Vermont's governor, who has sworn to veto Vermont's same-sex marriage bill. However, Vermont's Senate passed its same-sex marriage bill by a margin of 26-4, well over the 2/3 requirement.
     

Share This Page