Raymond Buckley could tip the scales toward HB 436 (marriage equality)

"marriage equality," like "choice," is a misnomer. There's no question that (0.00 / 0)

no marriage is like any other.  Like the people who commit themselves to provide comfort and support for each other, they're all different.

What does seem to be pretty common is the penchant for telling people, other than the ones we hire to do our bidding--i.e. the agents of government--what they ought to be doing.

The issue here is not the people whose life-time commitments get registered, or not; the issue is whether the registration service is delivered equally to all who apply and satisfy the minimum criteria (fill out a form and certify that they're not already committed to someone else).

Think of it as registering a motor vehicle.  What counts is that it's a vehicle, not whether the registrant is driving.

I'm not trying to be frivolous.  I'm trying to put the focus on the agent, rather than the recipient.  The reason equal treatment has to be mandated in the law is because many people prefer to respond to others on the basis of their perception, rather than what's expected of them.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:57:45 AM CDT

Chair's Role (4.00 / 1)

The role of a party chair is different from a former chair.  There are a Democratic governor, a Democratic state president and a Democratic speaker, other Democratic officeholders elected by the voters to make policy or issues decisions.  The party chair's job is to get Democrats elected, not to be a spokesperson on policy when there are elected Democratic officials who are making decisions on those policy issues.

You and I can say whatever we want on anything - a party chair gives up that freedom.    



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 07:30:01 AM CDT

I hate this (4.00 / 2)

I understand your point, and I agree with it to tht extent that I believe in message discipline (and I'm also not trying to nudge Ray into doing anything here), but I really, really get frustrated with the "Loose lips sink ships" code that this refers to. In my ideal world, everybody -- Ted Kennedy's top aide, the vice president's deputy chief of staff, all 50 party chairs, etc. -- would be free to say whatever they want, and we would all agree that they are entitled to their opinion, and no harm would come.

I know we're not there. But look at the alternative; an army of frustrated activists.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 09:32:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

From the NHDP Platform: (4.00 / 2)

http://www.nhdp.org/free_detai...

"We value an open and accessible state government that protects our fundamental freedoms.  We will enact laws that protect against unnecessary intrusions into our privacy and inappropriate uses of personal information.  We pledge to fight all efforts to divide our state because of race, religion, disability, immigration status, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Is is not the proper role of the Chair to make public statements in regard to the party platform?

Classical Liberal since 1983

---

by: Reverend Ryan @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 10:45:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Actually, no, if you read the party bylaws.  It is the job of the state committee to set policy consistent with policy established by the state convention.  



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well.. I'm speaking out (4.00 / 6)

I'm only a co-chair of the Labor Caucus, and I'm not speaking in that capacity, but I will testify on Wednesday and I expect that some of the Senators will recognize me.

This is not a time for our elected Democrats to tiptoe, to be careful not to offend the other party.  Hell, the other party never missed a chance to offend us when they were in power.  Goethe wrote:  "Be bold and great forces will come to your aide".  

This is a time for Democrats to be bold and do what's right.  If they let this bill fail, they are the same as the people who say that gay marriage will destroy the family structure.  By saying that Civil Unions are "good enough for now" they will be saying to Lesbian and Gay couples that "you aren't really good enough".  

As a Justice of the Peace, I'm tired of having to make different pronouncements depending on the two people standing in front of me.  When I civilly united Putney and his partner, I came up with the phrase "I now pronounce that you are united in civil union."  That is such bullshit.  Putney deserves to be married and the Democrats have the opportunity to make it happen.  I hope they don't disappoint us.

Note:  Upon preview it appears that I've written most of my speech for Wednesday.  Don't tell anybody what I wrote!!  

Why do you say socialism like it's a bad thing?

---

by: Beth Campbell @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 18:59:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So Well Said... (0.00 / 0)

...words of conscience.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 21:00:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An ex-chair, on the other hand... (4.00 / 1)

Kathy,

I appreciate -- and will admit to being surprised by -- your outspokenness on this issue so far.  I believe that the respect and regard you are held in by Senate Democrats would make your presence and testimony there extremely valuable.

A few minutes of your time on Wednesday could be the best investment you make all year.

---

by: Tim C. @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 23:04:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really, Putney (4.00 / 3)

Does anyone really think that Ray is AGAINST this bill?  His voice on civil rights issues has been one of the clearest and most passionate. . . .

Let's cut him a little slack, and respect the fact that his position sometimes requires sacrifices that the rest of us don't have to face.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 20:34:24 PM CDT

Not his job, and should remain that way (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect to Mr. Buckley, I don't think that him speaking out could tip any scales.  In fact, I suspect that most of the people in the state (present company excepted) do not actually know who he is.  Nor do I think they should have to.

Having non-elected party insiders tipping any scales is not really very democratic. It's not a "code", I'm not sure why you find it frustrating.  It's a recognition that he works for the elected officials (essentially), not the other way around. The people who need to speak out, and mostly are, are the people who are elected.  It's their job.  

---

by: kite @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 21:30:15 PM CDT

Being State Chair does not exclude one from speaking out on the issues (4.00 / 1)

Raymond was in the House Leadership for many years, he was instrumental in getting the Civil Union bill passed and he could be instrumental in getting the Marriage bill passed - if he wants to.

Raymond does have a public job, is well known, and was (is) a consultant for the NH Senate Democratic Caucus, so he is well known and extremely influential among the State Senate Democrats.

I have no doubt that Raymond is in favor of this bill, as are many people, but silence does not help any bill get passed.

Finally in regards to Kathy's comments, there is a press release on the NHDP website "NHDP Chair Joins President-Elect Obama in Calling for an Immediate Economic Recovery Plan." Raymond as State Chair is commenting on policy.

If Raymond can call for an economic recovery plan, there is no reason why he can't call for the passage of HB 436 and work for its passage.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 22:32:48 PM CDT

Not the same (0.00 / 0)

The press release probably was done at the request of the DNC in order to help promote the agenda of the head of the national party - the president. Very different.



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:10:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why I think this is wrongheaded: (4.00 / 6)

1. Party chairs don't run or get selected on the basis of policy skills. I don't want party chairs - Ray or Old John or Tim Kaine - somehow deciding legislative policy matters.
2. The suspicion that a party chair might reward and punish party nominees - e.g. for state Senate - based on their policy positions is especially dangerous. Is a litmus test on the income tax fair game? Or should we stick with letting local Dems choose their candidates.
3. Casting this as a party-line vote rather than a vote of conscience will taint a victory and make a later repeal more likely.
4. Ray's influence by speaking in favor would be minimal - just as Old John's influence is minimal in opposing an estate tax. Those are Dog Bites Man stories. If Ray opposed, or Old John favored schoolkids over the wealthy, THAT would get attention.
5. The great contribution of gay people to this debate is simply having come out. Once we know our neighbor is gay we don't need to ask him or her what they think of equal rights: our neighbor is a tug on our conscience regardless.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 05:30:30 AM CDT

This is more than just a vote of conscience (4.00 / 1)

If it was a straightforward vote of conscience I would leave Raymond out of this. But there are politics at play here:

There are State Senators who have always been sympathetic to our causes who are now pretending they don't know us.

There is a State Senator who was sitting with me in the House Gallery watching the entire debate, making supportive comments throughout the entire morning and was excited at the outcome who then has the chutzpah to tell Josh Rogers on NHPR that they are "undecided."

And there is the Governor who may putting pressure on the Senate to do the dirty work to defeat the bill so it doesn't reach his desk.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:11:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I believe the Senators should be pressured (4.00 / 3)

so I suppose I see a spectrum between "party line vote" and "vote of conscience."

I just don't believe the Party Chair can, or should, be effective in applying the pressure.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 07:09:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I cant believe people rated that a 4 (0.00 / 0)

-10 for comparing marriage equality to taxes.

and yes a litmus test for civil rights should be requirement for any member of the Democratic party.

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:56:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reformulate, yo. (4.00 / 2)

You say:
and yes a litmus test for civil rights should be requirement for any member of the Democratic party.

But what of people of devout personal faith? Is the Democratic Party to purge itself of people of faith?

That is the Communist Party.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 17:02:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

People of devout personal faith are against civil rights?

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 21:14:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Sacrament of Marriage (4.00 / 1)

Heard of it?

Why Celebrate Weddings in Churches?

Q: I have always dreamed of an outdoor wedding. Since I have been in a serious relationship for about three years, I was recently telling my aunt that I wanted to get married outdoors and how romantic I thought it would be.

She said that the Church does not consider a couple married unless they are married in a church building. That shattered my dream. Is this true?

I have always been taught that the Church is more the people than buildings. How much closer to God can you get than in God's beautiful outdoors?

A: A wedding's location says something important about a couple, in what context they are pledging their undying love and who has a stake in the success of their marriage.

Although your aunt may have overstated the case (exceptions are possible), I think that most Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States have a regulation that the bishop's permission is needed for a wedding outside a church building.

Why? Marriage is a lifelong commitment, which the larger faith community has a responsibility to nurture. Linking weddings to buildings used by the faith community is one way of making that point.

Weddings are usually celebrated in church buildings for the same reason that Baptisms are celebrated there: That is where the faith community most often gathers.

From the Church's point of view, the heart of the matter is, "How is this couple's marriage related to the faith community?"

People are obviously more important than buildings. Once you move weddings out of a church building, however, you face potential questions about having them on a roller coaster or Ferris wheel, while scuba diving or skydiving, or in some other location which the couple considers ideal.

I have read news reports about weddings in all these places. How do such locations favor or discourage participation by the larger faith community?

That community certainly has a stake in the success of every marriage its members enter. Should problems arise in a marriage, will the husband and wife turn only to those who witnessed their exchange of vows?

Please check with your parish priest to learn the regulations in your diocese regarding the site of weddings.

According to one saying, "A wedding is for a day. A marriage is for a lifetime." Best wishes for a beautiful wedding ceremony, followed by a long and faith-filled marriage.

Folks that are working out details about venue will certainly be taxed by the concept of same gender marriage.

These folks are part of the fabric of American culture. To me, the Constitution is clear. For others, there is some soul searching required.

I am not inclined to completely disregard the process they must go through. Your black and white language of "litmus test" is exactly the WRONG tact to take.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:24:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The sacrament of fair use (4.00 / 1)

Oh well, Christian charity may prevail.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:41:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exploiting the Franciscans (4.00 / 1)

I'm going to hell.

Oh, no I'm not. While in Iraq, I accepted Jesus Christ, as my personal savior. The Baptists never miss an opportunity.

I figured, better safe than sorry. ;v)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:52:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Franciscan performed my wedding (0.00 / 0)

Being rude, I asked why he wasn't a Jesuit.

He claimed the Franciscans are just as intellectual as the Jesuits, but more relaxed.

I declined to report this to any Jesuits, who would have kicked his ass for it (in their nonviolent, sanctioned by God fashion).

---

by: JimC @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:02:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I always favored the Knights Templar (0.00 / 0)

The Pope had them all slaughtered.  

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indeed (0.00 / 0)

He owed them money.

Fun fact about the Jesuits. At one time, perhaps still in some quarters, the head of the order was called the Black Pope.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:17:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with the point n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JimC @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:42:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Comparing marriage equality to taxes" (4.00 / 1)

Oh, go bloviate somewhere else.

Both marriage equality and tax changes require votes. So yes, comparisons between the two have some validity.

This truly stoopid form of discourse where any observation that things are similar in respect 17A gets shouted down as UNFEELING! because those things are different in other important respects is a great way to stay Angry and Ignorant.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 18:15:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Marriage equality (0.00 / 0)

is a civil right and should not require votes, so your poor comparison has no validity.

And if you dont know that, maybe I am in the wrong place.

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 21:34:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't be tedious (4.00 / 1)

There is a bill. It requires votes.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 22:49:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Distraction (4.00 / 3)

This is a distraction. The hearing is tomorrow and the vote will happen within a week. Let's stay focused. If you want marriage equality go to www.nhftm.org and do the following. Raymond is doing his job let us do ours.
Mo Baxley

1)  Attend "Rally for Your Rights" and public hearing.      

2) Contact your Senator

3)  Share your story

4)  Write a letter to the editor

5) Tell a Friend

6)  Become a sustaining member of NHFTM

Mo

---

by: Rep. Mo Baxley @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 17:40:47 PM CDT