Comments on: OMG: New Hampshire Republicans may not vote to repeal marriage!!

By: Theo

Theo — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:59:59 +0000

I think you are reading too much into that statement. That statement has no impact on the legislative docket and is not binding. Nor is it an exhaustive list of their agenda. As far as I know, the repeal bill is still on the docket and can be on the floor at any time. The sponsor, David Bates, has not withdrawn it.

I am really amazed that the NH press doesn’t cover this story. Like you, I couldn’t find even a single article clarifying the status of this thing. A real contrast with the heavy media coverage in NY, WA, MD, and NJ.

By: JOSE

JOSE — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:32:30 +0000

Be careful…… it might be a trap. Not making much noise, and suddenly moving forward.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:33:24 +0000

I have noticed a number of Republicans (including a representative from my district) who won independent voters on ‘fiscal responsibility’ have started pushing conservative social agendas rather than/in addition to their fiscal promises. My readings of the news from NH has indicated to me something similar happened in the state legislature. I expect voters will be smart enough to see in 2012 that they can only choose between fiscal conservatives with extremely conservative social agendas or fiscal moderates with moderate/liberal social views, and will choose the latter as preferable.

By: Randall

Randall — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:59:28 +0000

I have suspected for several weeks that many NH GOPers really didn’t have their hearts in this considering polling, etc.

All they needed to do was to give things a little time to appease the crazies and to find an escape hatch: they’ve found the escape hatch & exited.

Methinks, this is really another example of the progress we are making towards marriage equality in the country… not unlike what we witnessed in NY last summer.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:07:13 +0000

If the special elections in 2011in the New Hampshire house were any indication, the Democrats are going to make significant gains this fall.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:23:45 +0000

Smart move.

Perry v. Schwarz/Brown is going to be with SCOTUS in the next year or two. Why take away SSM when it will be forcably mandated as an equal right throughout the land in the near future.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:55:52 +0000

If I recall, that’s pretty much how 2011 played out. Good news indeed.

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:08:24 +0000

“Some (a sizable chunk which I saw estimated at about 30) want to do away with government marriage altogether and give everyone a civil union and let each church decide.”

I don’t understand how this “solution” is different than the current regime of courthouse-marriages & church-marriages already in place? & how would that work on a Federal Level? The latest language that I saw in a statutory replacement for DOMA was: For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

So under that language, for Federal Purposes, would people who live in NH & are not church-married in NH not have marriages unless they married outside of the country?

Its all so confusing…

By: Sam Y

Sam Y — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:44:13 +0000

I read on JMG that he believes it’s was the governor’s veto threat that might have done it in. I think it’s a combination of things that stopped the repeal. I’ll say this much that I’m thankful for the true libertarian streaks that stick to Republicans so well when it comes to this issue. I hope progressives, equality-minded conservatives, and other supporters will vote this coming election to increase the number of pro-equality state legislators in New Hampshire. Crossing my fingers now.

By: tristram

tristram — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:42:25 +0000

I suspect that they are planning either –

1. to work things out quietly and then spring a revised amendment and rush it through before the end of the session; or

2. if they think they cannot produce an amendment that would have enough support to override Lynch’s veto, wait until next year in the (not unreasonable) hope they’ll have someone like Ovide Lamontage as governor – so not only no veto, but active arm-twisting for repeal.

It’s my naturally sunny disposition – I’m always seeing the bright side of things!