Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 20, 2009
Homo New Hampshire House: What The Fuck?!?
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Bad news out of New Hampshire:
New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after its Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines.... Both chambers had been asked to approve language that would give religious institutions opposed to gay marriage legal protections.
No word yet on why the NH house voted down the additional language that the governor requested. , Governor Lynch pledged to sign the bill if specific language protecting religious groups—language that duplicated already-existing protections—was added to the bill. There was no reason for the house to reject this bill based on the governor's request. This development is mystifying.
UPDATE: But marriage equality is not yet dead in New Hampshire...
A divided New Hampshire House has refused to go along with changes the governor demanded to make his state the sixth to allow gay marriage. Instead, it voted to further negotiate with the Senate.... Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.
2
Religious institutions should not have legal protections of any kind, if they really were god aproved and inspired they should be able to take care of themselves.
3
Interesting that lately the only 2 states scottling these bills are CA (arguably the most liberal state in the country) and New Hampshire, where the motto is Love Free or Die....
4
Calm down until we figure this out. It seemed likely from the onset that the House would dismiss this addition for conflicting language and the potential of it being chucked in the courts for its breadth.
My suspicion is that this is twofold:
1) The House is exercising its right to free legislation, and therefore feels that accepting what is now legislation from the executive would damage the separation of powers.
2) They are rebuffing Governor Lynch's attempt at taking control of the issue to gain currency when he had previously been an outright opponent.
As far as I can read, it seems the Gen Court can only change language so decisively in conference. So they will probably make an effort to strip or limit Lynch's language and lob the ball back into his court. With high support for marriage equality and growing by the day, this is his game to lose.
My suspicion is that this is twofold:
1) The House is exercising its right to free legislation, and therefore feels that accepting what is now legislation from the executive would damage the separation of powers.
2) They are rebuffing Governor Lynch's attempt at taking control of the issue to gain currency when he had previously been an outright opponent.
As far as I can read, it seems the Gen Court can only change language so decisively in conference. So they will probably make an effort to strip or limit Lynch's language and lob the ball back into his court. With high support for marriage equality and growing by the day, this is his game to lose.
7
I think I nailed it, based on this quote from the original story: "State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be "bullied" by the governor.
Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law."
So basically they said "hell no" to Governor Lynch's attempts at inserting discriminatory language and legislating from the executive. Inserting a whole new clause and specific language is definitely bullying and inherently wrong; moreover, nobody should be expected to duplicate a standing and unspoken discrimination with outright legislation aimed squarely in the face of the discriminated.
While mormon temples are free to deny non-mormons the rites of marriage, it's not written explicitly in the law. It's understood that they have that freedom and it does not need to be expressed further. It does not say "under this clause, temples of the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints shall not be compelled to marry those of the jewish faith, those of the baha'i faith, etc.".
The fact that a bloc of Republicans is supporting the original over the amended version should be really telling, especially since people are calling him a traitor and expressing outrage that he would defy everyone and rail against this chance at a haphazard grab at equality that was likely to be held as precedent. Indeed, they did cite previous compromises of the sort in VT and CT, but this one went far further and was not initiated in the initial legislation but came from an entirely different branch of government.
This, again, is Lynch's game to lose. And it's quite clear from his veto threats that he's making a big mistake.
More...
Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law."
So basically they said "hell no" to Governor Lynch's attempts at inserting discriminatory language and legislating from the executive. Inserting a whole new clause and specific language is definitely bullying and inherently wrong; moreover, nobody should be expected to duplicate a standing and unspoken discrimination with outright legislation aimed squarely in the face of the discriminated.
While mormon temples are free to deny non-mormons the rites of marriage, it's not written explicitly in the law. It's understood that they have that freedom and it does not need to be expressed further. It does not say "under this clause, temples of the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints shall not be compelled to marry those of the jewish faith, those of the baha'i faith, etc.".
The fact that a bloc of Republicans is supporting the original over the amended version should be really telling, especially since people are calling him a traitor and expressing outrage that he would defy everyone and rail against this chance at a haphazard grab at equality that was likely to be held as precedent. Indeed, they did cite previous compromises of the sort in VT and CT, but this one went far further and was not initiated in the initial legislation but came from an entirely different branch of government.
This, again, is Lynch's game to lose. And it's quite clear from his veto threats that he's making a big mistake.
8
All I know is the day we allow pirates to marry, the FSM says the world will be served up as a dessert plate to the pirate fish.
9
Judging from all the bluster on the Boston Globe's comment threads, NH is about to get a huge influx of conservative Masshole expatriates fleeing yesterday's sales tax hike in "Lib'rul Taxachusetts"...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach…
10
I'm a current resident of Manchester, NH. Steve Vaillancourt, the gay Republican quoted in response 7, is a crackpot. A couple of years ago, he accused Ray Buckley, his former roommate, also gay, and the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic party, of importing child porn. Of course, he had no proof, it got ugly, and I'm shocked Steve didn't get sued out of existence.
However you feel about the wording the governor proposed - which is nearly identical to the wording in Vermont's and Connecticut's laws, and light years ahead of what's in any of 44 other state's laws, including the ones most of you live inu - I would not want him leading the delicate negotiation that may determine the fate of marriage equality in New Hampshire.
However you feel about the wording the governor proposed - which is nearly identical to the wording in Vermont's and Connecticut's laws, and light years ahead of what's in any of 44 other state's laws, including the ones most of you live inu - I would not want him leading the delicate negotiation that may determine the fate of marriage equality in New Hampshire.
11
From an NHPR report:
"Simply put, Mr. Vaillancourt's allegations that Mr. Buckley was involved in the possession of child pornography were unsubstatiiated and unfounded and that's what our investigation revealed."
Ayotte added that the evidence against Buckley was so lacking that prosecutors even weighed charging Steve Vaillancourt with making a false report to police.
"Simply put, Mr. Vaillancourt's allegations that Mr. Buckley was involved in the possession of child pornography were unsubstatiiated and unfounded and that's what our investigation revealed."
Ayotte added that the evidence against Buckley was so lacking that prosecutors even weighed charging Steve Vaillancourt with making a false report to police.
12
Here's the rub on the Governor's language. Under it, religious based groups like the Salvation Army can deny services like housing to couples that are gay. Without it, such a denial would be illegal. I think its a serious question about whether such discrimination should be written into a marriage equality law. At the same time, if I was voting and it was the only thing the governor would sign, I would vote yes and take the Salvation Army on in the public arena.
13
Great. Rather than approving a meaningless clause simply codifying what's already in the law, they've given that NOM bitch and her ilk another weapon in their arsenal. Make no mistake, the Religious Wrong will spin this as SEE,SEE THE EVIL GAYS DO WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (13) RSS