gay marriage legalized in New Hampshire

[Sheilbh]

Take pride in your bloated system if you like.

I did some googling and, so far as I can tell, they're paid $100 a year and meet once a week.  Each one represents 3 000 constituents.  I quite like the sound of the system to be honest

[Caliga]

I did some googling and, so far as I can tell, they're paid $100 a year and meet once a week.  Each one represents 3 000 constituents.  I quite like the sound of the system to be honest

New Hampshire.

[Neil]

Take pride in your bloated system if you like.

I did some googling and, so far as I can tell, they're paid $100 a year and meet once a week.  Each one represents 3 000 constituents.  I quite like the sound of the system to be honest

Smacks too much of direct democracy.

[garbon]

Indeed I take pride that the "Neil Persona" who is a racist homophobe monarchist hates USA, wouldn't want it any other way.

Although monarchies can be lovely.

[DontSayBanana]

The reason I said New Jersey is that there's a feeling it's a fait accompli if Corzine wins reelection; it's unclear how likely this is, since he's currently behind in the polls, but we'll see.

It's a fait accompli, but has nothing to do with the governortard. In NJ, we created a board to monitor the rights of homosexual partnerships when we instituted civil unions; that board has ruled pretty conclusively that civil unions were a step in the right direction, but not enough. We'd actually be more likely to pass it with Corzine gone, since he's such a polarizing figure on budget issues that our state legislature has been completely bottlenecked on money.

It should actually have been in the pipeline since 2007 here, so I wouldn't bet on us being the next state to legalize.

[Faeelin]

The reason I said New Jersey is that there's a feeling it's a fait accompli if Corzine wins reelection; it's unclear how likely this is, since he's currently behind in the polls, but we'll see.

It's a fait accompli, but has nothing to do with the governortard. In NJ, we created a board to monitor the rights of homosexual partnerships when we instituted civil unions; that board has ruled pretty conclusively that civil unions were a step in the right direction, but not enough. We'd actually be more likely to pass it with Corzine gone, since he's such a polarizing figure on budget issues that our state legislature has been completely bottlenecked on money.

It should actually have been in the pipeline since 2007 here, so I wouldn't bet on us being the next state to legalize.

The reason I think it's a fait accompli with Corzine is because I wish you good luck getting it passed with Christie in his place. You could probably manage it by taking it to the NJ Supreme Court again, with the board's holding a sign that civil unions had failed in meeting the court's order to give gays and lesbians equal rights with married couples. But I don't think they plan on doing it.

[KRonn]

Take pride in your bloated system if you like.

I don't think anyone takes pride in New Hampshire.

My take is that New Hampshire is, or was at least, one of the more efficient and smaller State governments. Their legislature is only part time, gets low or no pay, and the State govt hasn't really morphed into a big conglomerate like many other states. That's changing as they go more liberal, embrace more govt, spending and programs, and as more Mass residents flee to NH. 

[Caliga]

That's changing...as more Mass residents flee to NH.

NH ought to close its borders to Masstards.

[KRonn]

That's changing...as more Mass residents flee to NH.

NH ought to close its borders to Masstards.

Agreed there. Being that NH was the last sensible State run government in New England, they needed some kind of protection!   

[DontSayBanana]

The reason I think it's a fait accompli with Corzine is because I wish you good luck getting it passed with Christie in his place. You could probably manage it by taking it to the NJ Supreme Court again, with the board's holding a sign that civil unions had failed in meeting the court's order to give gays and lesbians equal rights with married couples. But I don't think they plan on doing it.

I don't believe Christie's a total moron; we've got a pretty significant GBLT community in NJ, especially in Mercer County. His official stance is this:

I also believe marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman. While, I have no issue with same sex couples sharing contractual rights, I believe that marriage should remain the exclusive domain of one man and one woman. If a bill legalizing same sex marriage came to my desk as Governor, I would veto it. If the law were changed by judicial fiat, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment on the ballot so that voters, not judges, would decide this important social question.

He'd actually be pretty easy to turn around; all we'd have to do is prove to him that the term is so legally loaded that you couldn't achieve the contractual rights without the name, that he'd either sign it with vocal dissent or have it sent back through as the state recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and leaving "marriage" proper in the hands of the churches.

[Martinus]

I saw an anti-gay-marriage commercial, featuring a Christian mixed race couple. Irony, much? 

[Jaron]

The gay marriage movement may have a positive effect on helping the once controversial biracial marriage be swept under the rug of social acceptance.

[Faeelin]

I don't believe Christie's a total moron; we've got a pretty significant GBLT community in NJ, especially in Mercer County. His official stance is this:

I also believe marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman. While, I have no issue with same sex couples sharing contractual rights, I believe that marriage should remain the exclusive domain of one man and one woman. If a bill legalizing same sex marriage came to my desk as Governor, I would veto it. If the law were changed by judicial fiat, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment on the ballot so that voters, not judges, would decide this important social question.

He'd actually be pretty easy to turn around; all we'd have to do is prove to him that the term is so legally loaded that you couldn't achieve the contractual rights without the name, that he'd either sign it with vocal dissent or have it sent back through as the state recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and leaving "marriage" proper in the hands of the churches.

Eh. Given that, as you pointed out,t the state's already found there is an ineqauality, this seems pretty optimistic. My guess is he'd just veto the bill.

[jimmy olsen]

I saw an anti-gay-marriage commercial, featuring a Christian mixed race couple. Irony, much? 

Given the important work of both black and white churches during the Civil Rights movement I don't think so.