Keeping Marriage Equality: 211 to 116. Amazing!

Those of us who have been personally (4.00 / 9)

affected by everything you've done over the last few years, Jim, are very grateful for your persistence, honesty, and humility.  You are a treasure to this state and today proves that your approach worked best.  Congratulations.  You, and all those who have been with you,  deserve a victory lap.

---

by: mevansnh @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 22:22:41 PM UTC

And us as well (4.00 / 8)

Those of us who have not personally been affected, but love justice, are grateful too.

---

by: Lenore Patton @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 00:29:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The arc of history can be a beautiful thing (4.00 / 10)

There are more fights ahead, but New Hampshire is clearly heading in the direction of settling the issue of marriage equality once and for all.  The leadership and courage of Granite Staters on this issue is a model for the nation.

---

by: chris pappas @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 22:32:22 PM UTC

Fact Is, Chris... (4.00 / 4)

...the arc of this historic achievement started long ago, with you and so many others -- I remember the speeches you gave on the House floor and committees about a decade ago for fairness and equality on a number of causes.  The foundation has been laid for years and years, mostly -- it has to be said -- by Democrats, but also by some Republicans.  

And THAT courage of years ago is the true model for the nation.  It's going to be great for New Hampshire having you back in government.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can someone help me to understand (4.00 / 3)

how this victory was achieved?  Like many others, I believed that the passage of this bill was inevitable and the real fight would be in sustaining Gov. Lynch's veto.

Is it because many members realized that the veto override process would be long and drawn out and would continue to hurt them?  Or did they simply listen to the people of NH who they represent and realized that rolling back equality is not acceptable in our state?

In any case, in many ways I think this is an even more historic day than when marriage equality originally passed.  This is a devastating defeat for NOM and the rest of the forces of hate and bigotry.  If they can't pass a bill repealing marriage equality in a legislature that's slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, then where can they win anymore?

---

by: unhhockey @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:08:40 PM UTC

Same thought (4.00 / 1)

I wondered the same thing; was this simply because they didn't want to slog out a veto override wait (ALA RTW)?  Or was it that we really did see people of a certain principle believe in their "small government"/"get government out of my life" mantra come through.

I saw a few tweets today with respect to Republican representatives who said they didn't support the original bill in 2009 but, they would not vote to take away someone's rights.

This battle is done, but the bigger fight still looms.  We cannot let up.  People like O'Brien and Bates (especially Bates) need to go.

To Jim: Your perseverance and courage is something to aspire to.  I can only hope to have half the calm, collective thought process you have some day.  Thank you for all of your hard work.

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

---

by: cblodg @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:21:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The first step is to elect a Democratic governor (4.00 / 2)

to replace Gov. Lynch.

---

by: unhhockey @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:25:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll Offer My Answer... (4.00 / 3)

...because I saw it develop step-by-step:  Lots of work by lots of people, of varied political philosophies.  And an opposition that had little clue about what "with liberty and justice for all" really means.  They misunderstood, and underestimated, New Hampshire people.

I think we'll see lots of change in 229 days.  That's November 6th.  I'm counting.    

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:23:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's been said a million times, (4.00 / 6)

but you deserve a huge amount of credit.  Thank you for everything you do for New Hampshire.

---

by: unhhockey @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:26:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

229 days (4.00 / 3)

Hey BH!  How about putting a count down clock somewhere on the site so we can watch it count down and know just exactly where we stand in relationship to 11/6/12???

"It is true that the law can't change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless."  Martin Luther King

---

by: cyndychase @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 15:20:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suspect... (4.00 / 1)

... that some folks fighting against repeal suspected this might be the case a few months back. But they didn't tip their hand, didn't take a cocky attitude and kept working like the dickens. All the better to make Bates believe he had it in the bag.

---

by: Hampshire Ite @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:49:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Help in understanding how.... (0.00 / 0)

is that those pesky Liberty Reps actually believe in it... And get up and fight for it.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:21:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Post of list of the Free State members in the House (0.00 / 0)

and their votes this time, Rep. Cohn. The last time you made claims about their positions it didn't hold up.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:48:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Free Staters were split (4.00 / 4)

The NH Liberty Alliance, which was founded by Free Staters, heartily endprsed marriage equality.  (There are all sorts of non-Free Sttaers who have joined the group.)

Several of the Republicans who spearheaded the pro-equality movement have FSP ties. Jenn Coffey is a Free Stater (and a very effective legislator.)  Tammy Simmons, in addition to being a Free Stater, is the partner of NHLA Research Director Dan Garthwaite.  (I am not sure if they are formally married or not.)  Mike Ball arrived in NH before the Free State Project started up, but he is part of the movement as well.

Seth muddied the waters with his "left-handed amendment" but he is an outspoken advocate of marriage equality.

The most outspoken Free Stater is Andrew Manuse, who apprently "took a walk" on this issue.  He has missed only 3 roll calls this year, the 2nd and 3rd of which were the decisive votes on HB 437.  The 2011 NHLA legislator of the year was Mark Warden, a dedicated rep who like Manuse rarely misses a vote--- and he also missed the last two votes on HB 437.


sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:04:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Majority of free staters... (0.00 / 0)

Manuse explained his votes publicly:

On the marriage bill today, I voted for all the amendments, including the committee amendment, Bates' amendment and all of the reconsideration votes to attempt to help pass the bill to repeal the existing law. It was important to me that the current law change, and I made every effort to affect such change. I even moved to reconsider a vote to divide section six from Bates' amendment when I thought it might help make a difference for the bill. It didn't. I moved an amendment to get government out of marriage. That didn't work. Unfortunately, the base bill went too far. It treated people unequally under the law. I couldn't support it, but I didn't want to vote against it. I walked out in disgust about how things were going, particularly the antics of some members. To me, marriage will always be between a man and a woman and I won't personally accept any other definition. I hope the law eventually removes government from marriage, so churches and other private institutions can define marriage on their own without government interference. Unfortunately, those who understand the religious and spiritual significance of marriage didn't win today. Perhaps we will have our day in the future. All I know is that I absolutely lived up to the commitment I made to everyone involved. I hope you all see it that way as well.

As I posted in the other thing, Dan McGuire got up and fought for repeal, and explained why he felt the way he did.  I disagree completely, but he's on the record with his complete views, better than most.

Warden had to leave for an work appointment, due to the delays.  Until he did, he voted against the repeal.  He wasn't happy but had to earn a living.

Tammy isn't a free stater, she's been in NH for many years.  But we're all free staters now...

As for a 'list', you know my position on that, but here's one compiled from
http://www.dnhpe.org/resources...

summary of voted Position on repeal:

Mark Warden Against* (on votes he did cast, had to leave before final vote and gone for rest of day)
Calvin Pratt Against
Cameron DeJong Against (spoke on floor)
Keith Murphy Against (spoke on floor)
Jonathan Maltz Against
Jennifer Coffey Against (spoke on floor)
Seth Cohn Against (tried to speak on floor
delivered a bit of my speech after session, and posted it publicly for all to see)
Carol McGuire For
Dan McGuire For (spoke on floor)
Andrew Manuse For (as above, walked on final votes rather than vote for what he felt was unequal)
Bruce MacMahon Against
Laura Jones For

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:02:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Civil Marrage (4.00 / 2)

"To me, marriage will always be between a man and a woman and I won't personally accept any other definition. I hope the law eventually removes government from marriage, so churches and other private institutions can define marriage on their own without government interference. Unfortunately, those who understand the religious and spiritual significance of marriage didn't win today."

My goodness, how could the current law be any clearer.  There is CIVIL MARRIAGE and religious marriage.  Churches CAN define marriage on their own without government interference.  They can discriminate any way they wish.  But for gays and lesbians not to be able to have civil marriage which is equal under the law with anyone else would be unconscionable.  Thank goodness the majority of the legislature saw that.  

"With liberty and justice for all" means something, even with Free Staters, and libertarians, doesn't it?  To support repeal of marriage equality and call onself a "Free Stater" or "Libertarian" is quite hypocritical. I'm proud of the virtually 99% of the House Democrats who agree with "Live Free Or Die."  And equality.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 02:28:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you... (0.00 / 0)

But you divide marriage into 2 things with adjectives, civil and religious, and that leaves the question of 'marriage' (one lone word) the real dividing point here.  Andrew and others define it one way, others define it other ways, and we're all arguing over that word.  That's why I had some Democrats tell me they couldn't support the domestic union bill solely due to it not being called "marriage", so it's all in the word... For both sides... Sadly.  Chaos remains.  Money remains for both sides to fundraise, and spend and fight... and the people suffer with uncertainty.

It's time to realize the word is the problem, not the concept.  If we'd voted on the HB569ish floor amendment to HB437 (and not on a parlimentary order override question), we'd have gotten closer to 100 votes, by my head count.  Maybe more (compared to 59 last year).  Could have been almost 120 if certain folks had been in the hall out of the 400.  I had one sure 'repeal' person tell me that if it failed, he was ready to jump to to domestic unions for everyone, but it needed to really fail first, and he'd come to this answer as his second choice.  So next session, it'll be back with new supporters (already hearing buzz and names I'm shocked to hear support it now on all sides), and I'm betting this compromise is the stable point where both sides finally find stasis in the struggle over the word. Words are powerful things.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 03:09:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Equality," "Liberty," "Justice" (0.00 / 0)

My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "equality" as "the quality or state of being equal." It defines "liberty" as "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges." It defines "justice" as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair."  

Of course, that's on Planet Earth.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 03:44:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legally Married vs. Civil Unioned or Domestically Partnered... (4.00 / 4)

Seth, at the big hearing last year, I was introduced to you and expressed my opposition to your bill, but we didn't have time to discuss.  Here's my basic point.  

If today I call an insurance agent (for example) and ask for a policy covering me and my legally married spouse, they understand exactly what I mean.  "Legally Married" is a nearly universally understood state of being.

When I made calls like that in 2008 and said I wanted a policy (account, whatever) for myself and my Civil Union Partner, they would say "that's only an option for married couples.". And I'd explain how the law said Civil Unions were legally the same in all but name, and many would still say no.  I was constantly explaining and reexplaining the term, and on more than one occasion had to threaten a complaint to the appropriate state agency to get the representative to call their legal dept for clarification.  

This is what all couples will deal with if your bill becomes law.  Think about calling your insurance company, with it's call center in Kansas, and convincing the rep. that they need to treat your NH Domestic Partnership the same as a marriage.  Trust me, it won't go smoothly.  

To you, a politician, and me, a lesbian, this topic is everywhere.  To the average straight, non activist Jane or Joe, it's simply not something they spend a great deal of time thinking about.  Marriage equality in general they have an opinion on, sure.  But exactly what a particular alternative term means?   Not so much.  Particularly terms defined differently in each state.

To be clear, I'm not accusing these first line reps and sales people of being bigoted.  Nearly all were professional, even sympathetic and apologetic, but still inappropriately told me no.  They were just uninformed.

To conclude, Seth, I think your idea is great in concept.  But the reality is that instituting it at the state level, especially in such a tiny state as NH, will just cause frustration for all combinations of couples.  

---

by: Karen @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 11:14:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, the bill addressed this... (0.00 / 0)

For all intents and purposes, it's a 'marriage' as far as anyone else is concerned, including other state or Federal.

Anyway, this will be up again next year... feel free to testify then.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From An Old-Timer... (4.00 / 5)

...who remembers the relatively responsible legislators and legislatures of a while ago (my first term was in 1969, if I recall), it would be nice if our elected officials wouldn't use their time in office to play games with people's lives.  

We want problems solved, not more ones made.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 13:20:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why the hell does it have to come up again? (4.00 / 7)

Why can't you just leave it alone, Representative Cohn?  As Jim put it, why do you feel the absolute need to play with people's lives?

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

---

by: cblodg @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 13:41:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

next year? (0.00 / 0)

Your arrogance is showing.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 15:48:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, someone else has already offered to submit it. (0.00 / 0)

So I'm merely reporting.  Folks in the know can read into that as they wish.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 18:28:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We already have a perfectly good word for it (4.00 / 2)

I think the Domestic Unions bill was unnecessary.  We already have a perfectly good word for "domestic union" already; "marriage."

I forget who it was, but one of the anti-equality reps reminisced about the American Heritage dictionary which he was given when he went away to college.  This was about the same time I went away to college and I still have my copy of the same edition of that dictionary.  It is sitting under the base of my computer monitor.

One of my favorite college memories is my discovery of the 23-volume Complete OED (which I eventually owned in a 2-volume "Compact" form, complete with magnifying glass.) The OED had a much longer definition of "marriage" than the American Heritage.


sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 18:36:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Answered above... (0.00 / 0)

Certain words have power, because of faith and culture and matters beyond legislation.  Marriage is one of them, according to many.  I like the OED too, but then you and I are geeks.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 18:41:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, "Marriage" Is Important (4.00 / 4)

I'm proud that the state which I have called "home" all my life, the state of Live Free or Die in the nation of "with liberty and justice for all," allows civil marriage for all of its citizens -- gay, lesbian, straight.  

Most people understand that.  Representative, please stop playing with our lives.  Can't you find better things to do?  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 19:00:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have weighted in on the semantics issue before (4.00 / 1)

so I will just reiterate that I'm with Jim--"civil marriage" for those benefits conferred by the state.  Religious marriage is, of course, less a matter for the state (although we do still disallow polygamy, incestuous marriages and other things.)


Here is a fact that should help you to fight a little longer.
Things that don't actually kill you outright make you stronger.

Piet Hein, Grooks

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 23:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What makes you think (4.00 / 1)

that you will be back next year to bring it up again? I have no idea whether you will be or not, but it sounds too much like Rep. Bates who says that he'll be bringing a repeal bill up against next year, and that it may be more successful depending upon the results gubernatorial election. Rep. Bates acknowledges that the governorship is in question, but doesn't seem to realize that the representatives of Windham are as well.

The marriage repeal is just one of so many extremist efforts--some successful and some not--to enact radical policy in New Hampshire that I really doubt even the voters who turned out in the lopsided 2010 election wanted. They may have been voted against the Democrats, but I do not think the majority of New Hampshirites support abortion misinformation, gun laws on par with Florida, reducing cigarette taxes while cutting vital funding, opposing commuter rail, repealing equality, or so many of the other things that folks such as yourself and Rep. Bates have attempted and often succeeded at enacting.

I don't doubt your sincerity or good-intentions, and I don't doubt that you believe in the things you have voted for. I just doubt that most New Hampshirites and your constituents do.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 16:03:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whether I come back or not... (0.00 / 0)

Someone is going to submit it.  The number of folks who support the idea is no longer a few dozen, it's closer to 100.  Or 1/4 of the current House, bipartisan.

FYI Bates and I even worked together on bills you probably agree with.  For example http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

Which created http://www4.egov.nh.gov/Expend...

I think if you looked over the legislation I submitted, you'd disagree with some, be neutral on some, and agree with some.  And so did the legislature as a whole.  Welcome to the process.  That tends to get ignored, it's corrupt and broken in so many many ways.  At least that's how I feel about it these days.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 18:37:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the record, (0.00 / 0)

I have no doubt--and I know for a fact--that we agree on certain things and on certain bills you've worked on. I do not mean to malign you or to suggest that you are a bad person in the least, or to suggest that you have any less right to represent the people of your district or New Hampshire than anyone else, or even that we disagree on everything. I'm just saying that on most major issues and on more bills than not, I suspect that we disagree, and I think that the people of New Hampshire may disagree with you, too. (They may disagree with me, too!) We'll see in November.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 19:09:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are our opponents really this dumb? (4.00 / 1)

This is the statement on Cornerstone's website.  Apparently the continuation of marriage equality is going to cost the nation $1 trillion over the next decade!

HB 437 was an honest, honorable attempt to recognize one man/one woman marriage as a necessary relationship in society.  Proponents of genderless marriage point to polls, but today they rejected an attempt to get the only poll that counts: a question on November's ballot so that all voters can decide.

Ultimately, it will be our children that will pay the price for failing to pass HB 437.  For instance, genderless marriage ends the biological link between parents and children.  In the future, parenting will just become a contract between two people; the gender roles of a mom and a dad will be irrelevant.  This violates the right of the child to know their biological mother and father.

There are also real long-term economic consequences to the breakdown of traditional marriage.  Such costs include dependency of children on government services like Medicaid, increases in substance abuse, and an escalation of juvenile delinquency.  These costs in New Hampshire have been conservatively calculated to be nearly $100 million a year and, nationally, the cost is $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over a decade.

Cornerstone is disappointed that these consequences of genderless marriage were not given their full consideration.  Yet, this vote does not change the fundamentals of marriage anymore than a law that bans the force of gravity.  Cornerstone will continue to bring the good news about genuine marriage between one man and one woman to any public discussion.

---

by: unhhockey @ Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 23:23:36 PM UTC

Will these people (4.00 / 2)

return next Jan. to begin this charade all over again in their Taliban-style reactionary fear that the sky is going to fall?  

We don't need any more rightwing christian terrorism.

---

by: mevansnh @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 09:45:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Honest, Honorable Attempt?" Seriously, Cornerstone? (4.00 / 4)

An honest, honorable attempt (not that I actually think it would have been honorable) ) would at a minimum have been a bill to repeal gay marriage and to reinstate civil unions as the Democrats and a few Republicans first enacted them, explicitly conferring all the benefits of marriage that the State of NH was able to confer, except for the M-word.  And requiring that everyone in the state continue to recognize those unions as fully as marriages.

Instead, HB 437 started out as what I assume Rep Bates, as sponsor, really wanted all along--Marriage equality repeal, and NO civil unions.

When Rep. Bates found out that would not fly, he put in an amendment that he said would reinstate civil unions, if by civil unions he meant some kind of contract that would only have to be honored by anyone who was not in any way offended by it.  The language of this amendment trivialized the marriage of any person who had not reproduced biologically, overrode the anti-discrimination laws already on our books, and allowed people who were still married though legally separated to have a contractual relationship in addition.  How is that an honest attempt to protect anyone?

Rep. Bates third amendment attempt might have reinstated the civil unions as they were originally passed in NH, but it also included the nonbonding ballot question which was supposed to have clarified the feelings of the NH people for all time.  (Never mind that polls show that the feelings of the people of NH on this particularly subject are fluid, and they have been flowing pretty fast towards the equality side of the debate for a number of years now.)  How on earth a two part question with only one answer was supposed to have clarified anything is beyond me.

So honest and honorable?  Not in my opinion.

Here is a fact that should help you to fight a little longer.
Things that don't actually kill you outright make you stronger.

Piet Hein, Grooks

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 23:40:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is hope (4.00 / 1)

I was not expecting this. Thanks to all those who helped steer the winds of change.

I'm with Lenore on this too. For all of us who feel strongly about Freedom and equality this is huge.

Again--thanks to those in the trenches and that goes double for Jim Splaine

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:08:22 AM UTC

Roll Call.. (0.00 / 0)

Hasnt been posted yet. Do we know who the two Dems to vote with the 116 were? I was surprised to hear that...

---

by: ChrisMelcher @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:16:17 AM UTC

House Bill 437 Roll Calls (4.00 / 1)

If this link doesn't work, you can go to nh/gov and click on "Legislative," then search bills by putting in hb437 no separation between letters and numbers.  It should come up -- click on any of the several roll calls for the names.  

Interesting!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:52:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very interesting going through this. (4.00 / 1)

First of all, am I seeing things or did Bettencourt vote to kill the bill?  What must Papa O'Brien think?

Second, on a somewhat unrelated note, can someone please tell me if "Kyle & Laura Jones" are some kind of (bad) joke being played on us?  While they're from my district, I admit to not having known anything about them until recently when Kyle Jones introduced the bill to change mandatory lunch breaks for hourly employees.  Upon further research, I found out that he is a home schooled 19-year-old who lives with his mother and works as a shift manager at a restaurant.  Although he seemed to know the workings of corporate America when he told us that if he were an employer and denied an employee a lunch break, he'd be in real trouble with the HR department.  Both of these people voted to end marriage equality as well.

Seriously New Hampshire?  I sincerely hope that some of these awful mistakes will be corrected next November (not the least of which is also defeating the odious Rep. Sue DeLemus).

---

by: unhhockey @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:37:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

D.J. ... (4.00 / 1)

... Has voted to preserve the law before. That's actually not a surprise.

---

by: Hampshire Ite @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:47:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bettencourt is not an idiot. (4.00 / 5)

He wants a future in politics, and he can read the writing on the wall.

He was in the chair during the debate and vote, and so should not normally vote unless his vote would be decisive. Yet he not only voted, but announced from the chair that he had voted, and how he had voted. He clearly wanted to be on record for future voters who would see him as a conservative ahead of his time, and a reasonable choice for statewide office.

Unfortunately for him, he's cast more than one vote this session, and made more than one statement.

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:01:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kyle didn't introduce the bill... (0.00 / 0)

Unless you get your news from Colbert.
He did speak on it, and that was why he got press, he gave them a soundbite.

And my seatmate Sue Delemus is not odious, even when she and I disagree (on this one, we did), she is delightful, and a pleasure to sit next to.  The voters got 3 honest and principled people with the Jones and Delemus, and all 3 have voted against the tide many times, to do the right thing as they saw it.  Their constituents should be proud of that.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:11:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Odious =/= ludicrous. (4.00 / 5)

Sue DeLemus and the Joneses do indeed follow and voice their beliefs unhesitatingly and regardless of the consequences. This speaks well of aspects of their characters and integrity -- and stands in distinct contrast to a certain oleaginously disingenuous "ooh, I think I'll be all publicly pro-equality today" rep from Salem/Pembroke.

Their beliefs -- certainly Sue DeLemus's, with which I'm more familiar, but by reputation also the Joneses' -- are, however, ludicrous and unworthy of the representatives of a literate people. They should all be removed from office at the next election, allowing them to retire to private life with their honor and pride intact, and allowing the affairs of the state to be conducted untainted by that muddle-headed cornucopia of paranoia and folly they conceive to be a political philosophy.

---

by: Tim C. @ Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 03:46:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm - if I'm counting right (4.00 / 3)

(Y means kill the repeal effort:)

Dems voted 92 Y, 1 N.
Reps voted 119 Y, 115 N.

So a (slight) majority within the Republican caucus opposed repeal.

That's remarkable.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:59:39 AM UTC

Today was awesome (4.00 / 1)

I am thrilled beyond words to still be able to marry in my own state.

Thank you so much to everyone who has worked so hard on this over the years.

New Hampshire is the greatest place on earth.  

"We now know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." - FDR

---

by: Granite Gnome @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:28:35 AM UTC

Dear Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, (4.00 / 1)

In honor of your defeat today, I dedicate this song to you:

While we appreciate the intense work you have put into telling us how to live our lives and treat our neighbors, we find that your services are no longer welcome or necessary. From now on we'll be making these decisions in-house.

Now go take all that sweet hater cash and go feed some hungry kids.

"We now know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." - FDR

---

by: Granite Gnome @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:21:04 AM UTC

And now the rain on the parade (4.00 / 10)

Broken clocks are right twice a day.

This legislature is a broken clock. They still wish to eviscerate public education.

They still want to take away contraception and interfere with the medical relationship of doctors and women.

Yesterday they passes a constitutional amendment to trample on the separation of powers and attack the judiciary.

They still want to take away workers rights.

Vote them out.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:15:17 AM UTC

Also, (4.00 / 2)

 because of a rule change voted in, O'Brien and the committees now have subpoena power. They can compel people to testify before them under penalty of law. There is no check and no recourse.

This was done ostensibly for the Redress of Grievances Committee. If you have time, I suggest you go to a hearing of this committee and see what it's about. Hearings are listed in the House Calendar

INAL, but this cannot be good.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:45:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

please keep us posted on this (0.00 / 0)

if you find out more.

Thanks for your work.

Beverly

---

by: beverlywoods @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:45:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not too bright of them to do that... (0.00 / 0)

they obviously haven't considered that not too far down the road they may be the ones subpoenaed. Hoist with their own petard, if you will.

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 16:51:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are aboslutely right (4.00 / 6)

but as I have said on this site before, (after the RTW veto was sustained) if you never celebrate, you burn out. So I personally like to dance for at least a day before coming back to stone cold reality.

Yesterday was a great day. Not only was marriage equality saved, but the Senate sustained the veto on the payday loan bill, saving NH families from being crushed under debt from legal loan sharks.

And we can all get a smug enjoyment out of watching the haters twist themselves into knots, spinning away their loss, and threatening "accountability".

But make no mistake, I talk to anyone who will listen about how this legislature needs to be shown the door.  

"We now know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." - FDR

---

by: Granite Gnome @ Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:28:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I also wonder . . . (4.00 / 1)

The knee-jerk reactions that "this will be a big deal in the fall" and "you haven't heard the last of the this" seem a little over-the-top to me.

If you cannot get a simple majority with a 300-100 split, how can you hope to get one with a 240-160 split? Or a 220-180 one? And by what model, given the fact that a pendulum swing back to the center is to be expected, will only the pro-equality Republicans be the ones defeated?

The simple fact is, each year marriage remains law is a year we gain more votes and acceptance. Yes, there may be votes on the subject in the future. But I think they can be won. (Not so secret secret: The GOP really doesn't want to make this a centerpiece of the state party - they can read the polls as well as anyone else.)

We must stay vigilant. But the conventional wisdom strikes me as being too alarmist.

---

by: Hampshire Ite @ Sat Mar 24, 2012 at 21:06:11 PM UTC