Come on Timmy, get Rhode Island in line now! :)
QuoteGay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire
By NORMA LOVE – 53 minutes ago
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.
After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.
Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.
"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.
Lynch, a Democrat, 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. Legislators made the changes.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine'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.
The New Hampshire law will take effect Jan. 1, exactly two years after the state began recognizing civil unions.
The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, elected in New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was among those celebrating the new law.
"It's about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens," Robinson said.
"There are a lot of people standing here who when we grew up could not have imagined this," he said. "You can't imagine something that is simply impossible. It's happened, in our lifetimes."
Opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process.
"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.
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 House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.
Supporters had considered Wednesday their last chance to pass a bill this year.
The law will establish civil and religious marriage licenses and allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples already in civil unions will automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage."
Churches will be able to decide whether to conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
New Hampshire's decision leaves Rhode Island as the only New England state not to allow same-sex marriages. A bill there is expected to fail this year, as similar ones have in previous years.
Let's hope Obama can restrain himself from a press release reiterating his opposition to gay marriage this time.
Anyway, predictions on the next state to legalize it? I'm gonna go with New Jersey beating New York, which, oddly, won't get it until... 2015 or so.
Well, Rhode Island prolly won't until 2011 or later, since IIRC that's when the Republican governor (who said he'd veto gay marriage) leaves office... since there are lots of uneducated Catholics there, I doubt gay marriage support is popular enough to put pressure on the legislature to pass it by any sort of resounding majority that could come back and override the veto.
Jersey is a possibility, as are Delaware and Maryland, since I think the hick population in those states is smaller than the suburbanite/urbanite populations. OTOH, there are lots of blacks in Wilmington and Baltimore and blacks overwhelmingly hate gays for some reason I've never understood (I guess they are jealous of their victim status or something).
I would think Wisconsin and Minnesota are also possibilities, as those states are trending liberal, are well-educated, and lack blacks who as previously stated viciously hate gays.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg8.imageshack.us%2Fimg8%2F1795%2Fcommentfacepalm.jpg&hash=7a38d231de7d0f9b679c26cca02f3473126ae161)
Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 06:45:58 PM
Well, Rhode Island prolly won't until 2011 or later, since IIRC that's when the Republican governor (who said he'd veto gay marriage) leaves office... since there are lots of uneducated Catholics there, I doubt gay marriage support is popular enough to put pressure on the legislature to pass it by any sort of resounding majority that could come back and override the veto.
Interestingly, the results of this poll were surprising: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcMDVFaAk2UVBxT5PPNGoGVT2O3AD98ERB480
QuoteJersey is a possibility, as are Delaware and Maryland, since I think the hick population in those states is smaller than the suburbanite/urbanite populations. OTOH, there are lots of blacks in Wilmington and Baltimore and blacks overwhelmingly hate gays for some reason I've never understood (I guess they are jealous of their victim status or something).
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2009, 06:46:50 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg8.imageshack.us%2Fimg8%2F1795%2Fcommentfacepalm.jpg&hash=7a38d231de7d0f9b679c26cca02f3473126ae161)
:mad:
Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2009, 06:46:50 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg8.imageshack.us%2Fimg8%2F1795%2Fcommentfacepalm.jpg&hash=7a38d231de7d0f9b679c26cca02f3473126ae161)
:mad:
:)
Don't worry, we aren't going to stop until everyone is gay married.
400 legislators for New Hampshire?
The US is the worst country ever.
Gay marriage is evil.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:04:14 PM
The US is the worst country ever.
You do realize coming from you this is a compliment?
He does have a point about the 400 legislators for New Hampshire...
Quote from: katmai on June 03, 2009, 08:05:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:04:14 PM
The US is the worst country ever.
You do realize coming from you this is a compliment?
Take pride in your bloated system if you like.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:22:35 PM
Take pride in your bloated system if you like.
I don't think anyone takes pride in New Hampshire. :tinfoil:
Quote from: PDH on June 03, 2009, 08:15:47 PM
He does have a point about the 400 legislators for New Hampshire...
Oh i'll concede the point, i mean that is like 1 legislator per 3 people for that state or something.
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:22:35 PM
Take pride in your bloated system if you like.
I don't think anyone takes pride in New Hampshire. :tinfoil:
Indeed I take pride that the "Neil Persona" who is a racist homophobe monarchist hates USA, wouldn't want it any other way.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:22:35 PM
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 :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 08:27:47 PM
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. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 08:27:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:22:35 PM
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.
Quote from: katmai on June 03, 2009, 08:27:26 PM
Indeed I take pride that the "Neil Persona" who is a racist homophobe monarchist hates USA, wouldn't want it any other way.
:yes:
Although monarchies can be lovely. :wub:
Quote from: Faeelin on June 03, 2009, 06:50:31 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 04, 2009, 09:59:24 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 03, 2009, 06:50:31 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 08:22:35 PM
Take pride in your bloated system if you like.
I don't think anyone takes pride in New Hampshire. :tinfoil:
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.
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2009, 11:41:59 AM
That's changing...as more Mass residents flee to NH.
:yes:
NH ought to close its borders to Masstards. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2009, 11:41:59 AM
That's changing...as more Mass residents flee to NH.
:yes:
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! :cool:
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2009, 11:08:58 AM
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:
QuoteI 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.
I saw an anti-gay-marriage commercial, featuring a Christian mixed race couple. Irony, much? :lol:
The gay marriage movement may have a positive effect on helping the once controversial biracial marriage be swept under the rug of social acceptance.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 04, 2009, 09:04:08 PM
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:
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 05, 2009, 01:23:05 AM
I saw an anti-gay-marriage commercial, featuring a Christian mixed race couple. Irony, much? :lol:
Given the important work of both black and white churches during the Civil Rights movement I don't think so.