Legislative Issues: Same Sex Marriage

Tip Jar (4.00 / 2)

Do we need Tip Jars on this site?

I dont know, what do you think?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 14:48:34 PM CST

with only a few dozen registered, not yet (4.00 / 1)

If membership reaches into the hundreds, hoping there are that many of us in NH, it would actually make sense to build a ratings-based system of credit.
I don't think we have to worry about trolls just yet..

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 18:18:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, i'll give Mojo anyway... [n/t] (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 18:57:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Have a 4 on me (0.00 / 0)

for being the first one to suggest a tip jar.

As for same-sex marriage, I'm obviously in favor of equal opportunity under the law.  I don't expect this realistically to be a major plart of the legislative agenda, however.

Lynch really recited the right-wing framed talking point "marriage is between a man and a woman"?  Yikes.

Well, here's another one for you: "equal opportunity under the law is between a citizen and his democracy."

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 20:11:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But see... (0.00 / 0)

There are a great deal of pro-marriage Democrats in the state house now.

The former (and as far as i know, current) executive director for a statewide Pro-Marriae organization is a part of the Democratic Caucus?

I believe that the Democrats have to prove their worth as a majority party by fixing Education, for sure. 

But, if this majority can't take some pro-equality action...

If nothing happend in the next two years, i'll try to add marriage equality into our 2008 platform.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 20:35:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think we could get civil unions (4.00 / 2)

I believe the voters would accept that, as the poll says. Whether Dems will chicken out is a different matter.

When we wait for the Courts to force us to follow our principles we weaken both our principles and the Courts.

(It would certainly be fun to talk trash to Vermont activists if we got even civil unions through legislation...)

---

by: elwood @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 17:13:30 PM CST

Why do you think (0.00 / 0)

That civil unions are more likely than full marriage equality?

I, for one, believe that seperate is not equal.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 18:58:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Partly that poll you cite (4.00 / 1)

"Civil marriage" sort of finesses the question, don't you think?

And it's almost a matter of arithmetic. There are (I believe) very few proponents of marriage equality who would actively oppose civil unions; there is some percent of people who support civil unions who would actively oppose marriage equality (which I support).

---

by: elwood @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 19:17:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Big issue here (0.00 / 0)

My state senator is religiously inclined, but votes against banning ALL forms of gay civil marriage. But is against gay marriage as it stands here right now (ie it's the same form filled out by heteros getting married).

Except we ALL partake in civil marriage when we get married. When my husband and I got married in NH, it was entirely a civil marriage. We're not religious. We have to make it clear to people no one is refuting their freedom of assembly in supporting gay marriage, because marriage IS civil at its core. Only religious people add religious marriage if it means something to them.

If religions don't want to join the 21st century they have that right, but for heaven's sake, seperate "Marriage" and "Religious Marriage". Instead, people are arguing about civil gay marriage vs. hetero marriage. Hetero marriage is civil! If NHerites finally get that, regular old civil marriage that hetero couples can have will be extended to gays. Until then, we'll have people pitching a hissy fit.

My MA blog: Left in Lowell

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 13:09:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 2)

I think civil unions are easily attainable, for a couple reasons:

1) Governor Lynch is very clear on some of his more conservative stances (ie: "no income tax, no sales tax"). This is not one of them.
He can support equal rights for couples via civil unions without having same-sex marriage as in Massachusetts.
He also said "I believe... " which does not mean he thinks his personal opinion should have any effect on the civil rights of others.

2) The election of Terie Norelli as speaker indicates that most House Democrats, including many of the 40% new membership, are comfortable with a socially progressive agenda. Steve DeStefano is a conservative Dem, but many of those who backed his coalition are from the Concord/Nashua areas which is no less liberal on social issues (proximity to MA??) and many people voted for him only because their second pick dropped out to back him.

3) Moderate Republicans can support civil unions. Many of the Republican seats lost were held by members of the right-wing House Republican Alliance. Motivated by issues like education, health care, and minimum wage.. but they ALSO rejected the radical-conservative message of anti-choice, anti-science, anti-gay, etc.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 19:00:03 PM CST

Civil Unions (0.00 / 0)

Most NH-ites agree, and even some conservatives may be likely to go along with the civil unions compromise.

On the other hand, as nervous as they must be about their two year stint, I wouldn't be surprised if some lost their nerve. The way to get this done is to demonstrate to timid lawmakers that there is broad support in getting this done (emphasis on broad).

Sorry I got late to this diary, I was out...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 21:34:02 PM CST

I'm not convinced... (0.00 / 0)

that we NEED to have civil unions instead of marriage. 

If your going to have equality, have equality.  Don't give us some perverted amalgamation of SOME of the legal rights.  Either we deserve equal rights, or we don't.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 21:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you could give basically all state rights (0.00 / 0)

While avoiding some of the federal/state issues.

My understanding of this area is imperfect, but from what I have heard, civil unions are a way to make things equal on a state level without opening the sticky question of reciprocity in other states. And it's that question of reciprocity which makes the perfect the enemy of the good here.

It certainly makes sense to me in terms of strategy the smart thing to do is to let this develop on the state level first. Once those gains are solidified in friendly states, then it's time to look at how to move it forward from there.

Like I said, my legal knowledge here is woefully inadequate, but my gut says the strategy should be focussed on make solid state gains, rather than going for broke. I *think* that means civil unions.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 23:02:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This might be OK (4.00 / 1)

If ALL marriages were suddenly labelled "civil unions" - but some hetero people would be like, "but I want a marriage!"

Stupid words. As mentioned above, ALL marriages are civil (and some go beyond and are religious). Basically this ends up being a fight about semantics, except it has real-world consequences for gay couples, as you have to build "civil unions" as an institution of laws from the ground up. Just calling it "marriage" means not having to figure out how to make sure all the rights and privledges of marriage apply to someone. Plus, I'm not sure about federal marriage laws, but I'm not sure a civil union is able to incorporate federal protections.

One thing I'm afraid of, is if you have civil unions, seperate but (sort of) equal because it's a battle you can win now, will gays ever get to change over to "real" marriage eventually?

My MA blog: Left in Lowell

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 13:14:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An evangelical friend proposes (4.00 / 1)

that the government get out of the business of marriage altogether, call everything civil union and make it available to all couples, then let churches own the term marriage and each church decides whether it will do gay marriage.  That works for me - some denominations will be a lot slower than others to allow gay marriage, but religious marriage will be available to gay people in at least some form, and there will be equality under the law.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:15:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But this is a case (4.00 / 2)

when progressives look for a reasonable compromise, while most of the opponents have no intention of compromising at all. Any talk of "degrading the institution of marriage" is only talk; the opposition comes from people who do not want to recognise equal rights for gay people.

The government really IS out of the business of marriage today: it doesn't run weddings, and weddings are what come first to the traditionalist mind (or my mind, for that matter) regarding marriage ceremonies.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:24:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely the case (4.00 / 2)

that progressives often look for reasonable compromises where none are going to be forthcoming from conservatives.  In this case, I wonder if there's a middle that could be won over - people who are supportive of many specific rights for gays but balk at the word marriage.  I do think those people are out there.  I don't want to give too much ground to them, because I think that equality is important and necessary, but establishing equality under the law seems like a nice first step, and churches can change their policies on marriage through the years.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:30:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Religious conservatives, who oppose equal rights for Gays and Lesbians, are not prepared to compromise.  Their opposition isn't based in faith  If it were, taking religion out of same sex marriages and only offering a civil service would be more than fair.  Instead, they oppose civil unions jut as they oppose same sex marriage.

They oppose gay marriage because of their fear and hate.  In their minds, Gays and Lesbians are second class citizens, and our love is not worthy of recognition by society. 

In my mind, any "compromise" of my right to equal protection under the law is unacceptable.  Anything less than THE SAME marriage rights as heterosexual couples, in a Church that supports my rights, is a manifestation of the hate of those who think me a second class citizen.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 18:46:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]