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 Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
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

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

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

Thank You, Governor Lynch!

by: Kathy Sullivan 2

Thu May 14, 2009 at 14:38:28 PM EDT


(NOTE: Please read the Governor's statement carefully.  It is a major step forward, but we have more work to do on this for passage and signature. - promoted by Dean Barker)

[I have changed the title from Breaking, Governor Lynch on Marriage Equality because someone should say thank you]

Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

CONCORD - Gov. John Lynch released the following statement today regarding same-sex legislation in New Hampshire:

"The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides.

"My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

"In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.

"Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination.  

"At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term 'civil union' to 'civil marriage.' Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change.  

"I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.

"I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded.  New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

"That is what I believe we must do today.

"But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

"The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.

"But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.

"I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.

"This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

"This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.
It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

"If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

"We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

"I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

# # #

Kathy Sullivan 2 :: Thank You, Governor Lynch!
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So... (4.00 / 3)
Is this good or bad?
Do CT and VT really have stronger "protections?" is this just political posturing?

I'm not sure how I feel about this...


Like most things in life .... (4.00 / 1)
.... this is excellent news for President Bush ...  John McCain ... John Boehner ... ummm.... Rush?

 "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain."

[ Parent ]
JBB called it May 8th (4.00 / 4)

what if he calls in The Speaker and Senate Prez (4.00 / 1)
and says something like..."I can only sign with these changes, which assure equal protection, so that the Bill would stand up to a challenge in Court" or something to that effect. I believe there is a provision in State law that would allow them to go back to their bodies and Amend, and/or correct or improve to get his signature. Who knows if that is correct>

Union Yes

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 14:20:28 PM EDT



www.KusterforCongress.com  

Logistics? (0.00 / 0)
So, how does that provision work? Obviously everyone is worried about the time table, but what processes does it have to go through? Will there be more hearings?

[ Parent ]
Totally Posturing (4.00 / 1)
He knows that the bill as passed does not impose on churches.
But now he intends to claim he made it better for them and then have it both ways.
A unique "leadership" style.
Now watch him on medical marijuana.

No'm Sayn?

I don't give a damn (4.00 / 4)
He can do all the posturing he wants, what's important is that the bill is signed.

I have no doubt that Sylvia and Terie will take care of it, and I expect it might be resolved as early as Wednesday.

He's finally said he will sign it, given additional language (which he's confident will pass) is added. We're winning.

And if that's what it takes to get 648 through too, so be it.

It's going to happen. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'm almost in tears right now.

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
Egg on who's face? (0.00 / 0)
Seems to me that HB436 needed some major work done to it for it to become the law of the land.

Gripe all you want at Govy, but it looks like the Bill went out half cocked.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
no egg (4.00 / 1)
this is totally about capitulating to the radical clerics and their hate wing agenda.

This is about not having the ovaries to stand up against the whack jobs of the far right. This way he can pussyfoot around and pretend to do something - even though it didn't need doing to begin with.  


[ Parent ]
The American Taliban? (0.00 / 0)
You'll go far with that rheotric.

Do you read much?
Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis

Editorial Review
President Jimmy Carter offers a passionate defense of separation of church and state. He warns that fundamentalists are deliberately blurring the lines between politics and religion.

As a believing Christian, Carter takes on issues that are under fierce debate -- women's rights, terrorism, homosexuality, civil liberties, abortion, the death penalty, science and religion, environmental degradation, nuclear arsenals, preemptive war, and America's global image.




www.KusterforCongress.com  

[ Parent ]
I read plenty (0.00 / 0)
and apparently I read better than you do. I didn't use the term Taliban - yet here you are, misrepresenting what I said, and introducing a diversion in what seems to be an attempt to change the subject.  

[ Parent ]
My bad (4.00 / 2)
I was on a streak of ignoring your rants, but I felt compelled to challenge your attack on Lynch.

When you say things like, "this is totally", as if Lynch had no other consideration, my eyes roll back. What I read is This is totally about my disdain for the Governor and I will pull on any thread that allows me to rail about how much he, by my own narrow definition, is not a Democrat.

Your gadfly routine, imho, is degenerating into an obtuse wail that is ladened with misandric overtones.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Hey Jack (0.00 / 1)
Just don't criticize Howard Dean for signing on with Halliburton's DC lobbyist. Then you'll really get it.....

[ Parent ]
How about talibangelicals? (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
This is foolish. (4.00 / 3)
If you accept the dubious premise that Lynch identified flaws, the next question would be: What took him so long?

There were hearings and hearings and hearings. The House and Senate members are in the book.


[ Parent ]
"What took him so long?" (0.00 / 0)
Anyone?

I don't see the need to nitpick. This whole thing is headed in the right direction. The author of the Lege is happy.

I'm going to defend the Governor against personal attacks on this. I think he did a good job. Sue me.

OK, elwood. For you, I'll take a deep breath. This is a blog that is independent by design. It is perfectly apropos to dissect the process here. Something can be learned from a hotwash.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Baloney. (4.00 / 1)
Maybe you don't know HOW to defend someone. Perhaps you only know offense.

You immediately leapt in to claim other people - the bills' authors and proponents - had screwed up and the Governor had to fix the bill.

That's nonsense. I wasn't going to complain about the Governor's action - but this gratuitous claim of yours doesn't pass the laugh test.


[ Parent ]
Could it be? (4.00 / 1)
That it was dead in committee because it was flawed? Or MUST it be that it was the oppression of teh gays. How sinister the world can be is the easy cop out.

You caught me steering it back to the source. I'm guilty, as charged. Hmmm. HB436 as written - NAY! As amended - Aye! As re-amended - SIGNED!

I think it is laughable that the readers of tealeaves and woodstove pundits spend time throwing darts in this case. Did someone say psychodrama?

For a few here, maybe not you, this stopped being about equality and became, in part, about Lynch or what he is perceived to represent, a while ago.

That is why this thread is so inflamed.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Baloney? Nay. BULLSHIT. (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't dead in committee. Get your facts straight.

It cannot even BE dead in committee in this state.

You're spouting misinformation.


[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
The committee did recommend against it, no? It wasn't dead, but it was limping.


[ Parent ]
"Dead in committee" (4.00 / 3)
Has a very specific and clear meaning: it doesn't get OUT of committee.

That happens in DC. It may happen in Massachusetts. It doesn't happen in NH.


[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
But my point was, Jack's language was imprecise, but his point about the pace of the bill was essentially correct (the spirit if not the letter, if you will).  A bit shy, perhaps, of bovine excrement in all caps. Just trying to tone down a bit here.


[ Parent ]
Sorry, no. (0.00 / 0)
Jack is full of it.

The "pace" of the bill was not about Our Serious Senators worrying that it had flaws in its language, which the Governor then discovered and corrected.

I'll leave it at that.


[ Parent ]
I agree with the second paragraph (0.00 / 0)
Re: the first, sure, at times, but we all are, at times. :-!



[ Parent ]
Technically, you're right (0.00 / 0)
Had the Senate Amendment not developed, HB436 would be 2 years away.

CONCORD - A key state Senate committee yesterday proposed killing two bills aimed at bringing social change to New Hampshire.

Bills legalizing same-sex marriage and expanding housing and employment rights to transgender Granite Staters had passed the House. Although yesterday's committee votes are recommendations that do not bind the full Senate, it is unlikely that either bill will be revived on the floor next week.

Are you going to challenge my blogging style? Like that means something?

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Leaping in (4.00 / 1)
Actually, I leapt in to point out that Bresler knew the score. Odd that Bresler knew, I assume because he knows the man and not the centrist effigy, what Lynch was thinking.

So despite all the frenetic baather from the far left and the far right, the governor, close to a week or more ago, knew that the bill had to stand strict judicial scrutiny before it would gain his signature.

It evades me how some can continually spew crap, challenging the Governor's ethics and character when he came out and plainly stated what his position was.

I view these as politically motivated attacks that are separate for the issue at hand.


www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Sound Familiar? (0.00 / 0)
It is obvious from his statement this afternoon that Gov. John Lynch has made a calculated political decision on the gay marriage bill. Whether or not the Legislature goes along with the changes he seeks, and we think it will, the fact is that Lynch has decided that politics wins over principle.

That must be a great disappointment to the people of New Hampshire, no matter on what side of this issue they find themselves.

-snip

Now, he has decided there are votes on both sides of this issue and he is trying to get them both, giving himself cover with his request for changes in the bill. But the fact remains that he thinks he can get away with this waffling position and still win a record-breaking fourth term next year.

We don't think so. We think Gov. "Flinch,'' as we heard him described the other day, has just lost, big time.




www.KusterforCongress.com  

[ Parent ]
This is foolish. (4.00 / 1)
If you accept the dubious premise that Lynch identified flaws, the next question would be: What took him so long?

There were hearings and hearings and hearings. The House and Senate members are in the book.


[ Parent ]
I am not sure why the hell.... (4.00 / 2)
I am not sure why the hell the opponents of gay marriage think gays are so eager to sue ministers, caterers, wedding photographers, etc. who don't approve of gay marriage.  Who wants their wedding to be done by people who are hostile towards you?

And even if the bill fails, gay couples ware STILL going to have commitment ceremonies anyway.  This supposed problem with gay marriage ALREADY can happen.... well it can happen if a couple acts in a a way which no sane couple would ever act (i.e., by trying to hire hostile contractors against their will instead of  using one of the many contractors who are eager to do the wedding.)

And I shd remind myself... this bill is about MARRIAGE: it is about the relationship which the wedding celebrates.


[ Parent ]
The beauty of this is.... (4.00 / 6)
it neuters the last ridiculous arguments coming from the theocrats, real or imagined.

I look forward to seeing them vote against religious protections, and looking like the morons they are.

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
ha! (0.00 / 0)
my very line of thought!

[ Parent ]
What are the chances (4.00 / 2)
that a new bill or amendment can be fashioned this calendar year?


100% (4.00 / 2)
It was done on HB 310, it can be done here.

Classical Liberal since 1983

[ Parent ]
excellent n/t (4.00 / 4)


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

[ Parent ]
The Language the Governor wants added. (4.00 / 4)
I.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith.  Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II.  The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III.  Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.  

IV.  Repeal.  RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.


Just constitutional clarification (4.00 / 1)
of Arts. 4 and 5.

It's a matter that would likely end up being decided that way by our courts, anyway.

Do it.

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
A Side by Side? (0.00 / 0)
How specifically is this language different from the bill as passed by House and Senate?

It is true, the result is a victory for equality.
Who cares how slick he had to be.

Now as I said, on to med mj!



No'm Sayn?


[ Parent ]
The Bill as Passed (4.00 / 1)
HB 436

[ Parent ]
The bill as is (4.00 / 2)
applies only to the ceremony itself, and only to religious groups.

This language would add that no organization or individual must participate in any way in a marriage that's against their tenets.

It also preempts the NM-photographer-type arguments. In other words, you can't take a Catholic caterer to the Human Rights Commission for not wanting to assist in your wedding (or reception, or anniversary, etc.)

(as an aside, I don't think the NM case could even be an issue in NH as our non-discrimination law doesn't apply to the personal service sector, but if this is what it takes to calm fears, so be it.)

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
That wasn't my reading (0.00 / 0)
This is the part where it specifies who is affected by part 1 of the change:
a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society

So it only protects individuals who are managed, directed, supervised by, or in conjunction with religious groups, as far as individuals go. If Fundamentalist Photographer X wants to be included under this section, he has to somehow get his business conjoined to a religious group, yes?

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!


[ Parent ]
Fundementalist Photographer X (4.00 / 1)
Doesnt have to offer his business services to anyone he doesnt want to in the first place.  He can loose as much money as he wants by not offering his services to as many people as he likes.

Bad business, though.


[ Parent ]
Besides: (4.00 / 2)
Why would i want a fundamentalist photographer at my wedding?

What a way to ruin it, lol.


[ Parent ]
Sure... (0.00 / 0)
But that's what happened in the NM photographer case. My understanding of the matter is that, as Ryan said, NH's non-discrimination laws don't apply to the private sector in that way anyhow, so the language here doesn't need to explicitly add further protections to them anyhow. I was disagreeing with the bit where Ryan said "It also preempts the NM-photographer-type arguments" and agreeing with his following aside that such preemption was unnecessary.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

[ Parent ]
Leviticus Thumper, Wedding Photographer (4.00 / 4)
"I notice you didn't fix the red-eye in any of our photographs."

"Yeah....I thought it expressed the essence of your relationship more just as it was."


[ Parent ]
Leviticus Thumper, wedding photographer (0.00 / 0)
That was the funniest thing I have ever read on this site! Keep up the good work! I have to agree. Why would anyone want a hate mongorer at their special day? I'm getting married in October and wouldn't hire a facsist wedding photog or caterer. I can't imagine any of my gay/lesbian friends going out of their way to ruin their weddings either.

[ Parent ]
"individual" (0.00 / 0)
Does that mean individual employees of a company doing a gay wedding can walk off the job?

[ Parent ]
i think (0.00 / 0)
it adds to the original bill exemptions for individuals/societies/etc who would not want to be involved in whatever way with a marriage their own religious tenets would reject, so long as these other players of the marriage business are owned or supervised or operated by religious institutions.
i too think this is a win for everyone, though i cringe at the fact that this was not done for say my parents who are both black, or for my many jewish friends, etc. i mean equal is equal is equal. this is indeed just posturing i believe. but let's pass it. time has come.

[ Parent ]
Okay? (4.00 / 1)
Given the choice between a marriage equality bill with that language and no marriage equality bill, and without enough votes for a veto override that's the current situation, I'd go with taking the proposed additions. This looks like an expansion from 'no religious person has to participate in the weddings' to 'no religious organization has to participate in the weddings in any way.' The right-wingers will still wail that this doesn't let private businesses discriminate openly, but they aren't going to be happy with any form of marriage equality anyhow.

What might be interesting now is seeing whether the Republicans try to block this amended language from passing (so as to kill the whole bill) and thereby set themselves up for 'voted against religious protections!' ads down the line.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!


[ Parent ]
the question (4.00 / 2)
the question on everyone's mind is: when would this be able to be voted on? are the votes looking promising rep. splaine?

Oh for goodness sake! (4.00 / 8)
For some reason, I thought I might see a "Thank you, Governor Lynch" or two, instead of crabbing about "posturing", blah, blah, blah.

Do some of you guys purposely empty out glasses that are more than half full?

Sheesh.


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


lol (4.00 / 1)
i agree that a thank you is in order. thank you governor lynch. when do you think the bill will be signed?

[ Parent ]
I made it clear (4.00 / 1)
It's posturing, but I don't give a damn. Whatever it takes.

If he has to play politics to get it through, so be it. He could have just vetoed. And I thank him for finding a way to make it happen.

I called his office to thank him already :-)

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
Here goes! (4.00 / 4)
Thank you, Governor Lynch, for clarifying your stance and laying out a clear path to passage for marriage equality in New Hampshire!

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

[ Parent ]
I just called, too (4.00 / 3)
Thanks for reminding me to call his office to  say thank you!!

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

[ Parent ]
I think we're all very thankful (4.00 / 8)
But being Red Sox fans we're also waiting until the last second to count our win...(how's that for a custom response, Kathy?)

I'm so ready to cheer, though, honestly. I'm cheering inside.

The minute this goes through I'll cheer outside too.

This is wonderful wonderful news...





[ Parent ]
Now, Mike! (4.00 / 5)
Red Sox fans are no longer permitted to act like that. Our Team has won two World Series in four game sweeps this decade.  You are no longer allowed to be without hope, ever. That's the law!

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

[ Parent ]
Please Kathy (4.00 / 1)
Please, I suffered for thirty years...if I want to bitch at/about the redsox I will!!!
Your other point is a valid one. We should thank Governor lynch for his willingness to put aside his own personal beliefs and to defend marriage equality. Of course some will never be pleased...As former Gov. John King used to say, "A Democrats worse enemy is a fellow Democrat"!

[ Parent ]
Good work Governor Lynch (4.00 / 2)

Thank you Kathy and Ray for leading the way.

[ Parent ]
Unnecessary psychodrama on the part of Governor Lynch (4.00 / 2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Governor Lynch could have been part of the discussions, debate and formulation of this bill up until the moment it was voted on by the legislature.

Instead of voicing his concerns he apparently ignored the bill until it was passed by the Senate.

While I'm glad he said he will sign the bill, he could have voiced his opinions earlier in the process and saved everyone this needless psychodrama.

The process does matter, it could have gone a lot smoother and with less suspense than it did.


[ Parent ]
The rollercoaster's been fun so far (4.00 / 2)
No recommendation out of House committee. Lost by one vote on the floor. We turned it around.

ITL from Senate committee. We turned it around.

A veto promise if left as-is. We'll turn it around.

This is the sound of the click-click-click before the last, and biggest, thrill of the ride.

Classical Liberal since 1983


[ Parent ]
I knew it! (0.00 / 0)
I predicted to someone that if Governor Lycnh announced he would sign marriage equality, you would still find a reason to criticize him. Thank you for confirming that I am prescient!!  

 

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


[ Parent ]
No one is beyond reproach (0.00 / 0)
Including your beloved Governor!

[ Parent ]
Or you! :) (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, Putney, put the grumpiness aside and call the Gov's office and say "thank you". It won't kill you to be happy that he listened to the debate and the stories and recognized that civil unions are not the same as marriage.

 

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


[ Parent ]
Seriously Kathy, this is not the way to govern (0.00 / 0)
Although I will call him.

[ Parent ]
Thank you! (4.00 / 2)
But I'm going to disagree with you.

While you found it frustrating, this debate has given everyone interested in this bill, no matter where they come down on it, an opportunity to weigh in. That is a good thing. And, a lot of elected officials needed time to process, in their own minds, that civil unions aren't equal.  A year ago, heck, even six months ago, I wouldn't have been vocal, because I hadn't completely processed it.  I would rather Governor Lynch have taken the time to listen, and process, and come to this conclusion, than come to a different conclusion.  


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


[ Parent ]
I ask only one thing further of him on this: (0.00 / 0)
Get it done before New York.

[ Parent ]
I think that Lynch did actually promise to be neutral (0.00 / 0)
It does seem to me that Lynch's campaign promises, from the quotes that were presented by the anti-gay-marriage side, do actually constitute a promise to be neutral in the overall debate.  So waiting until it was all resolved legislatively I think would validly be a commitment to his campaign promises.

So at least if you're going to criticize I think the criticism you're voicing should be directed at the initial promise to be neutral rather than his recent absence from the legislation-writing process.


[ Parent ]
My Standard (4.00 / 4)
If a gay couple can marry in New Hampshire by the end of 2009, then it's a victory, and the Governor, legislature, and people of this state can toast their commitment to human rights.

I only care about clarifying amendments if they (a) change the character of the civil right being provided, or (b) pose a significant delay to its legal recognition. As far as I can tell, today's action does neither.


Exactly (4.00 / 1)
What's the old line about sausages and laws?

Okay, maybe it wasn't as pretty as it could have been, but let's not get concerned about style points.

It got done.


[ Parent ]
Wow... (4.00 / 3)
Lynch will sign it... eventually... I'm so proud.

John Lynch is a frustrating man ..... (0.00 / 0)
..... which is why my local paper (the Valley News) had this editorial this past Sunday (read the whole thing) - telling him to get-off-the-pot:

But Lynch is a master of equivocation who never wants to spend any of the vast political capital he works so hard to accumulate. Instead, he wants to please everyone. On this issue, pleasing everyone is going to be difficult.

 It looks like he's finally decided to take a stand. If these changes are what it takes ..... well, OK by me.

 "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain."


Thank you! (4.00 / 4)
THANK YOU GOVERNOR LYNCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT TO EQUALITY! 'nough said!

[ Parent ]
Recommend another title change (0.00 / 0)
It's (inadvertently) deceptive.

People who log in now are going to think the deal is done.


Suggestion noted (4.00 / 1)
And rejected :)  

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

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Just a quick point: This is currently the lead diary on the state's premier progressive blog.

Now I'll shut up.



[ Parent ]
:( n/t (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
That's taking a position! n/t (0.00 / 0)


www.KusterforCongress.com  

[ Parent ]
I changed the promotion language. (4.00 / 1)
I had to read the statement twice and then click on some news articles to get more context because the title (inadvertently) threw me off as well.

[ Parent ]
Be careful about those amendments... (0.00 / 0)
They seem way too broad for me. This may be dangerous, folks.  

Read some of the comments (0.00 / 0)
here: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

[ Parent ]
Pretty much like Vermont's law n/t (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
when people ask what the benefit is to having a centrist governor rather than a republican (4.00 / 6)

it is things like this, which may drive some nuts as to process ( and it does to me to an extent), but which fundamentally better the lives of significant numbers of citizens. If almost any republican were governor, this would be vetoed and the votes arent there to override.

So today let us all be happy for a day that we do have a centrist governor who will allow for equal marriage rights for all.

Tomorrow we can all go back to complaining about where our ideals aren't totally met. And to trying to move the ball still further forward along the arc of freedom.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


A Centrist Republican Governor would have done the same thing (0.00 / 0)
Governor Liz Hager, Walter Peterson, Susan McLane...

[ Parent ]
True enough , but that beast is dead and gone-- where you gonna find one? (4.00 / 1)
The centrist republican in the Age of Limbaugh is a historical curiosity.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 3)
Because a "centrist" republican governor would never have been elected with a Democratic legislative majority that would pass the bill.  With all due respect to the Democratic legislators who worked hard to get elected, having John Lynch on the ticket, with his 70% popularity, scaring off any credible Republican gubernatorial candidate, is the reason we have as large a Democratic majority as we have - so you have John Lynch to thank for both civil unions and marriage equality in NH (assuming the legislature approves the language).  It takes a centrist Democrat to build a big enough tent.

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

[ Parent ]
Kathy, you are correct (0.00 / 0)
John Lynch walks on water, turns sickness into health, is the best governor this state has ever had...all this and his feces doesn't smell.

I am just in awe of His excellency and his supporters!


[ Parent ]
Couse hes not perfect. (0.00 / 0)
But with 70% approval, he must be doing SOMETHING right, no?

[ Parent ]
Most things (0.00 / 0)
But some posters, from their public statements, act as if there is no room for improvement.

[ Parent ]
LOL (4.00 / 3)
I was wrong - it would kill you to say something pleasant about the Governor! I actually think you would have been happier if he had announced he would never sign an equality bill!

Your head is exploding - just as I predicted!  OMG!

You poor thing - you will always have to live with the fact that John Lynch did something that you approve of.  

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


[ Parent ]
Kathy, you are correct (0.00 / 0)
John Lynch walks on water, turns sickness into health, is the best governor this state has ever had...all this and his feces doesn't smell.

I am just in awe of His excellency and his supporters!


[ Parent ]
Credit where due (4.00 / 3)
I certainly don't agree with Lynch on everything, and his centrism can be frustrating--especially re-appointing Ayotte in my mind. Still, I think it's pretty hard to seriously argue that his popularity and centrism didn't help Democrats win big in 2006 and 2008. There were larger issues, demographics, national, etc, but a highly popular Democratic governor showed some people who had never voted for a Democrat that we are actually a (or the) responsible, pragmatic party that looks out for people and civil rights and not some group of radical hippies as Sununu et al paint us to be. It's not all due to Lynch by any means, and in the future I'd like to see more progressive gubernatorial candidates, but Lynch emerged at just the right time when the state was really ready to turn blue, and was the right person to help usher this new era in.

[ Parent ]
Where has this crystal ball been hiding? (0.00 / 0)
This is your opinion not something engraved on a stone tablet. I am so amazed/amused to hear these pontifications. The falacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact blazed across the heavens. My opinion is that if a centrist republican governor was elected the heavens would open, the angel gabriel would decend and give everyone a tastee freeze cone - makes just as much sense as does your protestation. Perhaps a little more prefacing would help.

[ Parent ]
Not hiding... (4.00 / 2)
...or hadn't you noticed the election results over the last several cycles?

I don't have time to go find all the hard numbers, but, in 1998, Jeanne Shaheen kicked Lucas's butt, and we picked up the senate majority; I believe we also increased our house numbers.

In 2000, Jeanne Shaheen was elected with less than 50% of the vote, and we lost the senate majority.

In 2002, Craig Benson trounced Mark Fernald and swept in a tidal wave of legislators; we went down to six in the senate, and took it on the chin with state reps.  

In 2004, Governor Lycnh won by only 15,000 votes, and we did not pickup a Democratic majority.

In 2006 and 2008, Governor Lynch got 70%, we got the majorities.

Party and popularity of the gubernatorial candidate matters; that is fact, not hypothesis You may not  like the facts, but guess what - they are still the facts!

You may proceed with your rant about party leaders, jackboots, etc., now. ;)  

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


[ Parent ]
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. (4.00 / 1)
Learn it.

Kathy is too modest.  In fact, the New Hampshire Democratic gubernatorial candidate determines the outcome of national elections.

In 2000, Shaheen's narrow win caused Gore to barely get more votes than Bush.

In 2002, Fernald's liberal pro-income-tax stance turned a midterm election -- usually a boon to the out-of-power party -- into a disaster for Democrats, who lost the US Senate and eight seats in the House.

In 2004, Lynch's relatively unknown status enabled him to eke out a narrow win for himself, but couldn't quite pull Kerry across the finish line.  Yeah, that's how much Kerry sucked as a candidate.

In 2006, voters had not only gotten to know Governor Lynch, but many had actually built elaborate shrines to him in their front yards, repurposing garden gnomes as life-size devotional statues.  As a result, Democrats swept to power in both houses of Congress for the first time in a dozen years.

In 2008, Lynch chose to demonstrate the unlimited extent of his electoral power.  He did so by bringing about the election of a Kenyan-born socialist Muslim terrorist as President of the United States with -- just for kicks -- a blasphemous, nine-fingered, ballet-dancing Jew as his sidekick.


[ Parent ]
Coincidence? (0.00 / 0)
I think not.

Or have you no belief in the term "coattails"?

Learn it :)


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


[ Parent ]
Has Lynch contributed greatly to the success of NH Democrats? (4.00 / 1)
Yes, he certainly has.

Does he constitute a necessary and sufficient cause of Democratic success?

I think not.

Must we incessantly genuflect before the altar of "centrism," even when that "centrism" manifests itself as an inability to rise to the moment, a terror of causing offense to one's irreconcilable foes, and an acceptance as truth of their contemptible lies (see Ayotte, medical marijuana, or Sununu, transgendered toilet terrorists)?

Hell, no.


[ Parent ]
Oh Incessantly Disgruntled One (0.00 / 0)
You, like Putney, can't be happy with anything Governor Lynch does, because you are intolerant of Democrats who don't agree with you 100% of the time. You two are the ones who insist on genuflection before certain positions, a strict adherence to your definition of "progressive", or "Democrat."  

Me, I'm a practical person. I like seeing real progress being made, I like seeing Democrats elected and getting things done.  And in New Hampshire,  that's happened because we've elected two excellent Democratic governors for six out of seven terms.  It is too bad that your insistence on your definition of ideological purity won't permit you to enjoy the moment.  

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


[ Parent ]
You are putting words in my mouth, Kathy (0.00 / 0)
I have never said or implied that.

[ Parent ]
Nor have I, (0.00 / 0)
O Incessantly Misconstruing One.

Methinks thou hast long since constructed an image of myopic and mule-headed Jacobinism as the endemic curse of the Democratic Party, and in your unswerving dedication to the cause of confounding said perceived folly have fallen into the regrettable habit of appending your conception of any idealistic-sounding questioners of the wisdom of your political views -- Putney and me, in this case -- thereunto.


[ Parent ]
So prove me wrong (4.00 / 1)
List up to three things that you wholeheartedly, without reservation, without qualification, think are great things John Lynch has done. Or even good things.  Putney, too.  


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

[ Parent ]
Since you asked (4.00 / 1)
First, I've never agreed 100% with every candidate or officeholder I've supported - and that includes Bill Bradley and Howard Dean.

Most of his appointments, with the exception of Ayotte have been brilliant. He's great at disasters. And he helped ban smoking in restaurants.


[ Parent ]
Excellent!! (0.00 / 0)
That was easy, wasn't it?  

Hopefully TimC will take the challenge, too!  


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


[ Parent ]
Cum Hoc or Propter Hoc are both fallacies which I hope you have learned. (0.00 / 0)
Do you understand that nothing is proven by coincidence or following. That is the meaning of a fallacy. Now in the following items, you and Kathy provide evidence. This is, don't you know, a vastly different thing than the pronouncements made to which I did, and will always object. Instances which support your point are the very essence of communication and argument for the purpose of enlightening, pronouncements, without evidence, is the essence of authoritarianism. I am, as always, interested in your opinions. You've been around a long time and know people I neither know nor particularly want to know. Declarations of truth are another matter. That involves a level of trust that I might have if I knew you but I don't so I look for evidence - not pronouncement.

[ Parent ]
Between the slogans (4.00 / 1)
It struck me at the last 100 Dinner that Lynch has a firm and enduring commitment to the NH progressive movement. Where in the spectrum does he fall personally? I'm not sure.

As a politician, what I see is a pol with a keen awareness that there are multiple 3rd rails and a penchant for operating in the space between the slogans.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 1)
Kelly Ayotte sure is proof of a commitment to progressive issues.  

[ Parent ]
John Lynch Supports Marriage Equality (4.00 / 10)
I'll write more later in a Blogpost, because it was a fascinating process that John Lynch undertook from this morning to this afternoon. The Governor has really undergone a journey on this issue, and arrived at a good spot.  Today, he make it clear that he supports full marriage equality for the tens of thousands of New Hampshire gay and lesbian residents.  

The additional statutory language he is asking for will just further clarify what all of us fighting for this cause want to do:  guarantee protections for religious organizations.  The details of the words will be worked out by the House and Senate with his office, but we can do this.

Listening to him this morning, and then this afternoon, it's very clear he wants this to work.  WE want this to work.  Our job is to improve some language in the law, and put this issue behind us.  Equality.  2009.  With his signature.  

We can do this.


first (0.00 / 0)
first of all congrats -- and thank you. i can't wait to read your post later but i'm wondering (and perhaps you will address this then) why not just use the exact language he used? are there any pitfalls in doing that? i know in many governments the executive branch does not introduce legislation but merely applies is, though it can champion legislation through a legislator... anyway, you're the expert, you tell me.
again thanks a million for your hard work. and
(early) congratulations!

[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 0)
pathetic would be the operative term.  

I really dont understand (4.00 / 1)
Why people are upset about this.

What do these amendments do exactly that are bad?

How does helping kill the idea that this is bad for freedom of religion hurt us in the end?

Can anyone enlighten me?


[ Parent ]
Just my opinion (4.00 / 1)
People are exhausted with the length and intensity of the process.

[ Parent ]
It seems to me (0.00 / 0)
That some people are irritated with John Lynch's centrist governing style, and every example of it they find is all the more irritating.

I think this is a brilliant and bold move by Governor Lynch.  I'm absolutely thrilled he will sign a same sex marriage bill this year.


[ Parent ]
Just curious (4.00 / 1)
Why is it brilliant and bold? Why is not centrist to just sign the bill as is?

(I'm asking journalistically, no axe to grind. Though for the record, I agree that some people are irritated with the governor. I get irritated with the governor, sometimes, but as a flatlander I can only say so much.)


[ Parent ]
Maybe i should clerify: (4.00 / 4)
Bold for him.

I wasn't expecting him to sign the bill, but to let it pass without signature.

Brilliant: because it let him do what his base wanted, the right thing to do, AND make a nod to the opposition.

Its just about the most popular move he could have made on this issue, i think.  He will sign the bill AND protect religious freedom at the same time, devaluing the phony arguments of the Republicans.


[ Parent ]
Well clerified (0.00 / 0)
You'd make a good cleric. :-!

[ Parent ]
Good analysis (0.00 / 0)
Lynch's move can be used to join Papa 'nunu, the garbage man, to the hip of Fran Wendleboe! They get air time (hot), but many conservative cringe when they speak.

Lynch gives them cover.  

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 1)
HB 436 made it clear that it would be civil marriage.

I see this as Lynch attempting to find a way to weasel out that will give him cover. "Oh they didn't give me the language I wanted...so I had to veto it."

I hope I'm wrong.  


[ Parent ]
It's Part Of The Process... (4.00 / 2)
All this is the process of law-making, and it's a process that occurs in Washington, and in New Hampshire, and every state.  Each branch of the Legislature -- a House and Senate gets involved in crafting a bill, and the Executive branch does too -- he's weighing in with a suggestion, and we respond.  

The end result is we're going to have a good bill that does the job, and satisfies all concerns.  That's what the democratic process is all about.

And, in the end -- we have marriage equality.  That's a job well done by all concerned, it seems to me.  

We've spent thousands of hours on this cause during the past several years.  A few more hours of work to go, and we've accomplished a lot.


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