Some newly elected NH Republicans may vote against marriage repeal

Timothy Kincaid

January 15th, 2011

When November’s election revealed that Republicans had achieved a super-majority (enough to overturn a veto) in New Hampshire, the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gay activist groups gloated. Assuming that Republican registration equals anti-gay, they announced that they would immediately reverse New Hampshire’s marriage equality laws and override Governor Lynch’s veto to do so.

But the incoming Republican leadership isn’t interested in battling over marriage rights. It wants, instead, to deal with budget, taxes, regulation, business environment, and other fiscal matters. Anti-gay marriage is not on the leadership’s agenda.

Individual Republicans, however, have introduced language to reverse last year’s law. And social conservatives are assuming that when it comes time to vote they will have adequate power to overturn Lynch’s veto.

I’m not so sure. And neither are some in the Republican Caucus (The Dartmouth)

State Rep. Steven Cunningham, R-Sullivan, said that the newly elected Republicans may vote against a repeal of the same-sex marriage law due to their different ideologies regarding civil liberties and constitutional issues.

“It is a possibility it will pass, but I’m not convinced that such an effort will be as popular amongst Republicans as some of the other conservative issues facing the Republican Party,” Cunningham said. “I believe this year included a very large number of constitutional-oriented and libertarian individuals who chose to run under the Republican banner, embracing 80 percent of the Republican platform, but differ in areas of individual rights and issues enumerated in the constitution.”

Some Republicans told their peers in the state House that they would not be comfortable voting for a repeal after they had already granted same-sex couples marriage equality, according to Nordgren.

State Sen. Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton, who originally voted against the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, said she has since seen no problem with the legislation and plans to vote against the repeal if it reaches the Senate.

All in all, I think that it is unlikely that marriage equality will be reversed in New Hampshire. But it is too soon to be certain.


January 15th, 2011

Republicans would only need 264 House votes out of 297 to override the Governor’s veto. I’m sure some Republicans wouldn’t vote for repeal. But 33 of them? I think repeal is far more likely than not. And what about the next time there’s a Republican governor? It’s all she wrote. All the more reason why marriage equality should be rigorously pursued through the courts.

Timothy Kincaid

January 15th, 2011


Last year 40 Republicans voted against appeal.

It can be tempting to think of Republicans in stereotypical terms (as NOM does), but NH Repubs are not like Alabama Repubs.


January 16th, 2011

But which 40? How many are still currently in office, or were they removed for being RINOs? I can’t find that info.

L. Junius Brutus

January 16th, 2011

One of them is the current Majority Leader, though he did vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The more important problem is: Lynch can’t stay in office forever. If his successor is an anti-marriage Republican, repeal will be easy.

Richard W. Fitch

January 16th, 2011

All the more reason to fight that DOMA be abolished pronto. Once that happens all the state bans will fall to the embers.


January 16th, 2011

I agree that repeal is more likely than not, but not “far more likely” as Ryan says. The 2010 repeal vote is the best marker, and that vote indicates that it is plausible that we could get the required number of GOP votes. But it is also true that there has been no published analysis of whether those votes are there today.

If anyone wants to try to quantify the level of support, here is the roll call for the Feb. 2010 repeal vote:

It is worth noting that 60 representatives, from both parties, did not vote.

Two factors weighing in our favor, and one against: In our favor, if the vote is put off until 2012, that will mean 2 years will have passed since the law went into effect. The longer it stays in effect, the harder it will be to repeal. Second factor in our favor is that the fight will be to sustain Lynch’s veto. So the Dems are more likely to stay united. In 2010, 4 Dems voted for repeal and probably other cross-overs were among the 60 non-voters.

One factor against us: The repeal supporters are not seeking to dissolve existing SSMs; it would only apply prospectively. Also, if they are not confident of passage, they are likely to try to package the repeal with an offer some second class DP rights, something less than civil unions. This will be billed as a “moderate” position, i.e., more compassionate than a bare repeal but less radical than allowing SSM to continue. For some reason, I find this to be more infuriating than a simple repeal.


January 16th, 2011

There are still 26 Republicans who voted against repeal in office now, and I bet there are MANY more new ones among the 120+ new ones. Also, the actual number required to override a veto is 266, not 264.

As far as a Republican governor coming in next term, 2015 is a long ways away (4 years is lightyears in the gay marriage movement), and the Democrats are likely to gain more seats by then and it may not even achieve a majority in the NH House.


January 16th, 2011

Alas, Lynch’s term comes up in 2012 (NH has 2-year terms).


January 17th, 2011

Right, Lynch is done in two years. If he loses to a Republican, repeal is certain, barring another huge shift in the House makeup again. It will only take a majority for repeal to happen, then. Sure, NH Republicans are different from AL Republicans. But they’re still Republicans.

L. Junius Brutus

January 17th, 2011

Or if he retires. Considering that he withstood a wave in 2010, I think that it’s unlikely that he will be defeated by a Republican, unless he is dragged down by Obama.


January 17th, 2011

Has Lynch said that he won’t run in 2012? Either way 2012 will be better for Democrats since it’s a presidential election year.

And yes, every year it can be put off the better. 2012 will be better then 2011 and 2013 will be better then 2012. It may not even achieve majority support in 2013 since the Democrats are likely to gain back several seats in the legislature.

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2011


But which 40? How many are still currently in office, or were they removed for being RINOs? I can’t find that info.

Some are, some didn’t run again. You can find the votes at the NH legislature site and compare it to the list of elected officials at the NH sec of state site. I did this in November and it was my impression that while some didn’t seek reelection, no one lost their seat.

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2011

Some Republicans may have noticed that only one election strongly emphasized the marriage vote. NOM dumped piles of cash into NH to harp on that issue and defeat Lynch.

I think few of them consider their majority to be some sort of mandate for overturning marriage and perhaps a few recognize that the voters actually said quite the opposite.


January 17th, 2011

I read that the wild swings in the NH legislature have been the result of a court-imposed districting plan. The NH Supreme Court struck down the prior districting method and imposed its own. The legislature developed a new redistricting method, which was approved by the voters in 2006. During the interim period of 2006-2010, the court-imposed plan was in effect and it was this plan that created the potential for big swings.

Unfortunately, as far as I understand, the new districting method that was adopted in 2006 goes into effect in 2012. So there will be no more swings comparable to the one 2010. The Dems couldn’t have picked a worse time to suffer a huge defeat.

The NH House and Senate likely are artificially lopsided toward the GOP and there should be some settling back, but the chances of the Dems retaking either house would appear to be slim.

If there are any NH experts who could shed some more light on this, I would appreciate it.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.