Your Marriage Gives Me the Willies ...

Who wants a cake (0.00 / 0)

tainted by homophobia, anyway??!!

 "The future is not something to be predicted, it's something to be achieved,"  unattributed aphorism

---

by: susaninrindge @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 20:41:19 PM UTC

Good luck (4.00 / 1)

to Newt Gingrich if he ever comes to town.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 20:49:05 PM UTC

I don't believe this law does anything - (0.00 / 0)

Businesses have a fair amount of flexibility on who they serve already - and where discrimination IS prohibited, a state law doesn't trump that prohibition.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 22:57:21 PM UTC

If this law were to pass (4.00 / 3)

whether or not federal law supercedes, it would create a frightening environment for those seeking marriage services and enshrine discrimination in our state statutes.  That seems pretty onerous to me.

---

by: Crawford @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 23:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right - I should have said (0.00 / 0)

I don't believe it has any legal effect.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 23:54:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hate Is A Powerful Motivator. (4.00 / 1)

Unfortunate, but true.  

[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 Jan 20, 2012 at 23:12:32 PM UTC

Republicans (4.00 / 1)

Republicans seem to use hate and fear to control and fire-up their base.  For example, the issue of choice will never go away as long as they can use it to get people riled.  Gay rights is another issue they use as a means of bringing out the worst in people.  

BTW, did O'Brien not have the votes to pass the bill to revoke marriage equality this week?  Is that why they've pushed it out to perhaps Feb?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:41:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

House Scheduling of Matters of Individual Choice. (4.00 / 1)

I have no claim to know what the Speaker is thinking with respect to scheduling, but HB 437 is a bill retained from last year.  There are a whole host of new bills affecting matters of individual choice this year.  The Speaker may be waiting to address them all at the same time.  Many of these new bills will be heard in the Judiciary Committee this Tuesday.  Here is the schedule:

JUDICIARY, Room 208, LOB
9:00 a.m.         HB 1223-FN, relative to remedies under the right-to-know law.
9:30 a.m.         HB 1264, establishing a religious exemption for individuals who do not wish to provide accommodations, goods, or services for marriages.
10:00 a.m.        HB 1395, revoking  amendments to supreme court rules 50 and 50-A.
11:00 a.m.        HB 1653-FN, relative to the rights of conscience for medical professionals.
11:30 a.m.        HB 1659-FN, relative to the women's right to know act regarding abortion information.
12:30 p.m.        HB 1660-FN, relative to abortions after 20 weeks.
1:30 p.m.          HB 1679-FN, relative to partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions.
2:30 p.m.          HB 1216, relative to the authority for withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
3:00 p.m.          HB 1217, relative to the form for executing advance directives for health care decisions.
3:30 p.m.          HB 1273, relative to the termination of parental rights in cases where the child is born of rape.
                       Executive session may follow.

To see the text of any of the bills, go to the General Court web site and enter the bill number in the State Legislation Dashboard box on the upper right.  Clicking on Bill Text  on the next page will get you the text of the bill and the names of the sponsors.

Read 'em and weep.  

I note that many of these bills would in the past have been referred (rightly, in my opinion) to the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs or the Child and Family Committees, but the Speaker is far more likely to get the recommendation he wants from the Judiciary Committee, which he has attempted to pack with guaranteed anti-choice members.

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 @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 13:43:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My question (4.00 / 1)

regarding HB 1273, "relative to the termination of parental rights in cases where the child is born of rape" is who pays to support the child if the biological father's identity is known but his parental rights rescinded?  I see no provision in the bill to help support the mother and child.

Oh wait, this is a republican bill.  Their answer is as always, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 14:49:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NPR (0.00 / 0)

reported this morning the NOM is planning to spend $250,000 to overturn marriage equality here in NH.  Perhaps the delay with voting has something to do with the NOM money.  Where do they get their money?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 14:22:58 PM UTC

Presumably, people donate it to them. They certainly don't earn it. (0.00 / 0)

Deprivation seems to have a wide constituency--lots of people eager to take from others what they don't value for themselves.  It's a peculiar kind of envy.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 14:35:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aren't they required by law (0.00 / 0)

to name their supporters?  Wasn't there a lawsuit that they lost in Maine on that very issue?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 14:50:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

from the Mormons and the Catholics n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: susanthe @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 15:09:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple bribery (4.00 / 1)

The $250,000 is not meant to advocate for the bill. It's a bribe that NOM is promising lawmakers who vote for it.

They have no arguments, and certainly no traction with the vast majority of New Hampshire voters, so they simply use threats and cash.

---

by: Hampshire Ite @ Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:53:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans don't have a monopoly on conscience (4.00 / 4)

Why is that Republicans always bring up these issues of "conscience" when it comes to marriage equality, abortion and other issues, but it doesn't seem to apply to issues like war or torture. I never hear about how "taxpayer dollars" (another term I hate) fund unnecessary wars or the torture of prisoners against the conscience and objections of millions of American citizens (taxpayers and otherwise). Yet, the argument is constantly made--and too rarely refuted--that those who oppose abortion should not have to pay taxes to fund it, and those who oppose homosexuality (I call these people bigots) can discriminate against their fellow Americans on conscientious grounds. Republicans hardly hold a monopoly on matters of conscience; and government cannot reflect the conscience of every individual American.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:12:50 AM UTC