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
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

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

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

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

Seventy Towns Reject Anti-Marriage Article

by: Dean Barker

Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 19:07:35 PM EDT


From New Hampshire Freedom to Marry's latest release:
Here is a list of seventy towns that rejected the resolution.

This list does not include 88 of New Hampshire's 231 towns and all of New Hampshire's 13 cities that refused to take the issue up.

Alexandria ,Alstead, Andover, Antrim, Barrington, Bartlett, Bethlehem, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Brentwood, Brookfield, Brookline, Chesterfield, Chichester,.Colebrook, Deerfield Dublin, Easton, Franconia, Farmington, Gilsum, Goffstown, Greenland, Groveton, Hebron, Hillsborough, Holderness, Hollis, Jackson, Jaffrey, Kensington, Lee, Lincoln, Lisbon, Lyman, Lyndeborough, Marlborough, Marlow, Meredith, Monroe, Newbury, Nelson, New Durham, New Hampton, New London, Northumberland, Northwood, Nottingham, Ossipee, Pembroke, Plainfield, Plymouth, Rindge, Rumney, Rye, Salisbury, Sharon, Shelburne, Strathford, Stratham, Sugar Hill, Temple, Tuftonboro, Walpole, Westmoreland, Wilton, Winchester, Wolfeboro, Washington.

Of course, this does not include those towns which did pass it, but not by the 2/3rds majority that would be needed for a constitutional amendment of this nature.

So, when is the Union Leader going to write a new article on what really happened?

(Full release below the fold...)

Dean Barker :: Seventy Towns Reject Anti-Marriage Article
Equality wins again

Equality wins the popular vote with seventy towns having already rejected the anti-gay resolution. "Once again the people of New Hampshire have spoken and said we believe in equality and individual liberties and we do not believe in amending our constitution to take away peoples rights" said Mo Baxley, Executive Director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.

Here is a list of seventy towns that rejected the resolution.
This list does not include 88 of New Hampshire's 231 towns and all of New Hampshire's 13 cities that refused to take the issue up.

Alexandria ,Alstead, Andover, Antrim, Barrington, Bartlett, Bethlehem, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Brentwood, Brookfield, Brookline, Chesterfield, Chichester,.Colebrook, Deerfield Dublin, Easton, Franconia, Farmington, Gilsum, Goffstown, Greenland, Groveton, Hebron, Hillsborough, Holderness, Hollis, Jackson, Jaffrey, Kensington, Lee, Lincoln, Lisbon, Lyman, Lyndeborough, Marlborough, Marlow, Meredith, Monroe, Newbury, Nelson, New Durham, New Hampton, New London, Northumberland, Northwood, Nottingham, Ossipee, Pembroke, Plainfield, Plymouth, Rindge, Rumney, Rye, Salisbury, Sharon, Shelburne, Strathford, Stratham, Sugar Hill, Temple, Tuftonboro, Walpole, Westmoreland, Wilton, Winchester, Wolfeboro, Washington.

These results are totally consistent with UNH Survey Center polling that demonstrates 74% of New Hampshire citizens are not bothered by marriage equality. Opponents of equality having failed miserably in their effort. They have failed to reach a simple majority of New Hampshire voters let alone the 2/3 necessary.

No issue has had more public discourse than this one. With public hearing held in Littleton, Keene, Portsmouth and Nashua and multiple public hearings held in Concord that lasted all day. Literally thousands of New Hampshire residents have participated in the public discourse over the last few years and have collectively come to support marriage equality.

This amendment has already been defeated by the New Hampshire House of Representatives by a vote of 201 to 135. Similar constitutional amendments were rejected in the last two legislative sessions, in 2006, under Republican leadership, and 2007 under Democratic leadership.

These non-binding resolution's are an attempt to turn neighbor against neighbor and trick citizens into supporting this hateful constitutional amendment that reads define marriage whether in name or effect, as the union of one man and one women.

This would not only repeal marriage equality but would also make civil unions and or any other type of relationship recognition for gay/lesbian couples unconstitutional.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is it accurate to say that the cities "did not (0.00 / 0)
take it up"?

I don't believe they had an opportunity to even consider the matter. Cities don't have Town Meetings, which is why we call them...

(Adding: I would have enjoyed being part of the overwhelming vote among cities that rejected this hate campaign, had it reached us urbanites.)


Cities had elections last fall. (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't on the ballot in Manchester.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner


[ Parent ]
Defeat (by Indefinite Tabling) was worse than if the motion had been voted down. (4.00 / 2)
That's how the Exeter Newsletter summed up Stratham petition sponsor John Polzella's response to my successful motion to indefinitely table his petition warrant article.

Said Mr. Polzella, "I am a big 'data person.' I am fine (with gay marriage) as long as people vote and unfortunately, with the motion indefinitely tabled, Stratham will never have their voices heard."

No, Mr. Polzella.  The voices of Stratham were heard quite clearly.  You just don't like what they are saying.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/...


Hampton Union (0.00 / 0)
Hampton Union published a front page article stating that NH voters (overwhelmingly) want a say on marriage, but on the first page they give only examples of towns that approved the warrant article by extremely high percentages.  They also quote Cornerstone as their authority on the matter.  I'm not particularly familiar with this paper, but the reporting was very Union Leader-esque, very misleading.

Newsletter/Herald had a much more balanced story... (0.00 / 0)
They start with:
"Voters in many communities across the New Hampshire Seacoast have made it clear they want to have a say on how marriage in this state is defined."

But then follow up with:
"However, in many communities in which the resolution passed, the number of voters in favor of the resolution did not meet the two-thirds minimum required for a constitutional amendment.  In addition, a number of communities either killed the resolution article at deliberative session or voted to table or kill it at town meetings held late last week."

And ended with:
"People on both sides want to see closure," Goethel said. "Most want to vote on it, but it doesn't mean they are opposed to it."

http://www.seacoastonline.com/...


[ Parent ]
hmm... (0.00 / 0)
Reading your comment again, maybe we are talking about the same story?  I only saw it online, but I can see how if only the first half is on the front page that would give a different impression.  

[ Parent ]
Same story, yes (0.00 / 0)
Looking at the headlines you would come away with a completely different impression than if you read the whole article.  (Kinda.)  An editor would be aware of this.  If the majority of towns debating the article voted it down or tabled it, the emphasis should be in the other direction.  I would think it was a landslide for discrimination if my only source of information was this news article.

[ Parent ]
Still, gotta keep it in perspective. (0.00 / 0)
If this had been the Union Leader, the second half of the article would not have existed.  

I've only had a few interactions with the editor in question, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue.  He made his personal opinion quite clear Friday night at our town meeting.  Perhaps, in an attempt to have the news piece appear unbiased, he overcompensated?

Or maybe I'm being too generous.  It's equally likely it was a calculated move designed to sell papers.  But that's the business - the occasional cringe inducing, and sales producing, headline is the price we pay to keep our local papers.  Without them, who would put the resources into covering town meetings?


[ Parent ]

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