Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

New Hampshire House Votes for Marriage

Timothy Kincaid

March 26th, 2009

Boston Globe reports:

The House has voted to make New Hampshire the third state allowing gays to marry two years after they granted them the right to enter into civil unions.

The House voted 186-179 to send the bill to the Senate. The first attempt to pass the bill fell one vote short, but opponents were unable to kill it. The House then reconsidered and passed the measure.

So the race is on.

Will Vermont’s House give a veto-proof vote for marriage to become the third state? Will New Hampshire’s Senate vote yes and a reluctant Gov. Lynch allow it to become law? Will New York’s Senate leadership grow a pair and bring the bill up for certain passage? Will California’s Supremes give that state back its status as a marriage equality state? Or will either New Jersey or Maine quietly step out of the shadows to steal the title?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Eddie89
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

Wow!

With action like this, who needs American Idol!

Bruno
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

The race is on…but there are roadblocks in every state. Even Connecticut, though it was a huge long shot, had a roadblock. I predict Vermont will be the first, and NH will not pass the law ultimately.

L. Junius Brutus
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

There is a significant chance that marriage will be defeated in all states.

CA: Justices seem obstinately committed to Prop. 8
NH: Senate might not have the votes, Gov might veto.
NY: State Senate doesn’t have the votes.
VT: House might not have a veto-proof majority.

Apparently, Maine has pro-equality majorities, and I think the governor will sign. But the fundamentalists will try to bring it to a vote.

Not that David
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

“CA: Justices seem obstinately committed to Prop. 8″

There’s no evidence of this. In fact, their decision in May indicated that they felt that the right to marriage was not something that could be taken away by referendum.

Additionally, the longer they take, the less likely they are upholding Prop 8, since that would require the least sophisticated or nuanced decision. The longer it goes, the more it looks like they are crafting a decision that will support same-sex marriage and forestall future attempts to vote it away.

L. Junius Brutus
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

Not that David, did you listen to the oral arguments? It’s not pretty, but I’m pretty sure that they’re going to rule against us.

As for your second argument, I’m not sure. Would it be constitutional to say that everyone has the right to free speech, except Jews? If they rule against us, yes. It takes a lot of ink to justify saying something like that, too.

Jaft
March 26th, 2009 | LINK

L. Junius Brutus – that’s true, yet just look at our status. It’s always acceptable to treat us less, even in this country, and not seen on the same level as other minority groups. That “faggot” is still not seen on the same level as “nigger” is evident of that. Sadly, at this point in time, saying something like “everyone has the right to marriage, except gays” is utterly legitimate and not all that far from the grain. Nearly half of Cali seemed to think so.

Bruno
March 27th, 2009 | LINK

As far as the prop 8 ruling, people thought it being overturned was a long-shot to begin with, and the justice’s questions didn’t undermine that logic. However, all I can say with any certainty is that Justice Kennard, who voted to overturn prop 22 last year, will vote to uphold prop 8. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will stand, but some of the other justices will have to come around to our side’s persuasive arguments in order to overturn. It’s still a huge longshot.

Timothy (TRiG)
March 27th, 2009 | LINK

Do we trust the judges to decide on the basis of the law as it stands, and not on the basis of the law as we (or they) wish it were? If not, we are indeed advocating “judicial activism”. (As many on the right decry while demanding it themselves.)

TRiG.

Timothy Kincaid
March 27th, 2009 | LINK

TRiG,

I do trust these particular judges to decide based on what they truly believe to be the dictates of the California Constitution. I will believe that, even if they are unanimous in upholding Prop 8.

Tara TASW
March 27th, 2009 | LINK

Don’t count Iowa out. They still have a pending same-sex marriage case, and one (count ‘em, one) legally married gay couple.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.