About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

What does this mean?

by: mevansnh

Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 08:15:14 AM EDT
IMPORTANT FUTURE DATE: Tuesday, October 25th, 11:00 a.m. JUDICIARY, Room 208, LOB Executive session on HB 437-FN, relative to the definition of marriage, and HB 443-FN, establishing that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

http://www.granitestateprogres...

Do they plan to vote on this before Nov. 2nd? Is there any more public input planned?  
mevansnh :: What does this mean?
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What does this mean? | 3 comments
Whatever. (0.00 / 0)
Fact is that it's much easier not to recognize a right than to take it away.  Deprivation of rights has to be based on due process, in response to a crime.
Our destroyers have a real hard time that things don't work forwards and backwards in the same way.  DADT was able to be repealed for the simple reason that it was un-Constitutional to begin with. Not so with disregarding gender is issuing a marriage certificate and making a public record of a private contract. Once that right was extended, it can't simply be removed.  There might even be a potential property right violation.

Think of it this way. We don't have to give people land, but once they have it, we can't take it away. Our not recognizing that they have it doesn't change the fact that they have it.

Our destroyers can't see that because they want to be able to get rid of what they don't like other people having--like little kids knocking down sand castles on the beach.

retianed bills (0.00 / 0)
HB 437 & 443 are retained bills, which means the committee refused to act on them during the regular 2011 session. According to the House rules (insofar as O'Brien's House has any rules) retained bills have to be reported out of committee by Tuesday November 2nd, 2011.  The executive session is a meeting where the committee decides votes on how to report the bill (as "Ought to Pass" or "Inexpedient to Legislate" or perhaps "Refer to Interim Study.") The full house has till March 29, 2012 to dispose of the retained bills.

If a bill is referred to interim study, a subcommittee is appointed to meet on the bill during the fall of 2012 to look at the underlying issues.  The subcommittee eventually writes a report which in most cases no one ever reads, and the bill probably gets reintroduced in 2013.

HB 437 to date: (0.00 / 0)
A subcommittee held a work session on HB 437 and HB 443.  The recommendation of the subcommittee was to amend HB 437 in its entirety.  The original bill merely repealed marriage equality.  The amendment purports to re-establish civil unions.  However, it simply reaffirms the right of two people to enter into a contract; it does NOT re-establish the state sanctioned civil unions which were in place in NH for the two years before marriage equality was passed.  The subcommittee voted to recommend the amendment to the full committee by a vote of 3-1.  (No extra credit is given for guessing the identity of the lone holdout.)

Typically for this administration, the new language will be voted on by the full Judiciary Committee without opportunity for any meaningful public input.  The language of the amendment is not yet posted on any House web page that I know of.

The Judiciary Committee will vote on its recommendation to the full House on Oct. 25.  The bill will likely not reach the House floor until early January, but, of course, anything is possible.

Because of the action taken on HB 437, the subcommittee recommended that HB 443 be voted ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate.)  

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

What does this mean? | 3 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox