Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
It was 1997 and the issue before the senate was legislation to end what had been legal discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation.
A moderate Republican colleague told me he supported the bill. His fear of not being re-elected kept him from voting for it; he lost re-election anyway.
So what was the point of being there?
Of course I am leading into the upcoming vote on HB 436, the marriage equality bill.
I don't think it is a stretch to say nearly all Democrats and traditional Republicans really do not oppose gay marriages. We all understand marriage is hard work and if two people choose to commit themselves to that institution, we wish them well.
It is certainly true that no married person would willingly choose to trade their marriage for a civil union. It's a downgrade and everyone knows that.
At the judiciary committee hearing, we heard loudly from a few non-traditional Republicans, the quickly fading (and perhaps panicking) religious-political extremist wing of the party, which has a stake in opposing equal rights. They apparently felt that their white straight (or perhaps closeted) male dominance is threatened.
But as anyone who knows the Granite State knows, our traditional Republicans have been somewhat libertarian: government stay the heck out of our private lives. That tradition remains the majority opinion, by far.
I'd like someone to explain to me how any marriage weakens or threatens any other marriage. Of course it can not. That's not the issue.
The real issue, as one person speaking at the senate hearing said, is that women have been wearing pants too long and men need to wear the pants again. It's a good thing I went to the hearing, otherwise I would not have known that.
The problem is the CYA argument itself. Many in the body of 24 may think, as that senator in 1997 did, well if I do what I know is right, I may not get re-elected to do more good and important work. In voting against passage of the equal rights bill, the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, "New Hampshire is not ready for gay marriage." While that deeply cuts all gay citizens, it also insults everyone else in New Hampshire.
I am reminded of the gun safety debates. A very loud minority was able to take time off from work and speak against sensible gun safety practices nearly all gun owners do anyway. But at the same time, all polls reflected the fact that a vast majority of New Hampshire was in favor of safe storage when kids are around. We won and did no harm to gun owners.
All polls now show that by a wide margin, people here are not threatened by gay marriage and want everyone to enjoy the same rights equally. No more no less. As in the past, this clear majority is sometimes drowned out by the angry, small and shrinking, far right minority.
As was pointed out recently, in the 1930s New Hampshire remained an island in which Gentiles and Jews were not permitted to marry one another.
Since the passage of the law making illegal discrimination against gays just for being gay, has any harm come to New Hampshire? Clearly no harm has come, only fairness to all citizens. Show me the harm that came from changing the law and allowing Jews to marry non-Jews.
Some have argued now is not the time. We don't want to endanger any Democratic senators in Republican districts. I respond with two points.
First, voters in our state hunger for politicians with backbone. I've had Democratic friends who live in Jack Barnes' district tell me they disagree with him on nearly everything but they genuinely respect and truly appreciate him for speaking his mind, for so clearly and unambiguously standing up for what he believes in. His honest stance has served him well. As it should.
Second, as I said to my 1997 senate colleague, what is the point of having power if you don't do what you know in your heart is the right thing?
