Thank You, Governor Lynch

by: Dean Barker

Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 21:32:48 PM EDT

NEW TOPIC! Marriage Equality - Other Bills - Up For Hearing Thursday

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 23:20:41 PM EST

The bills will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee in room 208 of the Legislative Office Building, which is directly in back of the State House in Concord.  

One of our proudest accomplishments in the 2007 Legislature was the passage of Civil Unions, a move toward full equality for our New Hampshire gay and lesbian friends, family members, and neighbors.  It was fantastic to see Governor John Lynch sign the bill into law in May of that year.  During the past 13 months that Civil Unions have been allowed, over 600 couples have made their commitment to share their love, caring, and lives together.

Here are the four bills that will be up for public hearing:

A Year of Disappointment

by: Dean Barker

Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 21:12:19 PM EST

No worries, though; I have every expectation that my marriage will be super-duper threatened by some upcoming freedom-to-marry bill, or so I will be instructed by those who claim to know about these things.

Why "Civil Unions for Everyone" is a Bad Idea

by: elwood

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 21:01:44 PM EST

It seems so darn reasonable.

Many people who seem reasonable, fair, and not driven by homophobia are nonetheless uncomfortable with "gay marriage." Sometimes, they are not personally opposed but they respect people who are. And they suggest "Let's get the state out of the marriage business completely. Civil unions for gays, civil unions for everyone."

It has the appeal of even-handedness, and the people who are suggesting the approach are, in my experience, entirely motivated by good will.

But it's a bad idea.

Why I Believe The Discussion About Marriage Equality Has To Continue

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 22:35:07 PM EDT

But on this Earth, there is nothing more important than the way we treat one another.  If we ended discrimination of all kinds, if we were fair with one another and kind toward one another, and if we shared rights and opportunities with everyone on this planet, we would all succeed together.  Wars would be needless.  Hate would be a thing of the past.  

I think someday this world will evolve to that point.  We will still have competition, we'll still see some people doing better and having more than others.  But if we treated each other honestly, fairly, and equally we all would be so much better off.  Discrimination and inequality needs to be fought wherever it occurs.  At any given time it might not seem like the most important issue in front of us, but for the long term it is.  

That vision is probably many decades or centuries off.  But to get there takes lots of footsteps, and a certain degree of patience.  Having patience, however, doesn't mean inaction -- nor does it mean waiting until later to have the discussion that discrimination is just plain wrong.  Now is always the time to have the discussion about the way we treat one another.

After giving it a good amount of thought, and realizing that there would be an effort on "the other side" to repeal parts of the New Hampshire Civil Unions Law that was approved last year and became effective at 12:01 AM on January 1st, 2008, I decided to introduce a full marriage equality bill with the word "marriage" for 2009.  I received a call from a Union Leader reporter last Thursday, and they have already covered the issue.  So I wanted the readers of www.BlueHampshire.com to know why I think this is an important issue to discuss -- even at this point of an election year.

I'm quite mindful of the reality that it will be a difficult job to achieve full marriage equality for New Hampshire's gays and lesbians anytime soon.  But the walk toward full equality has to continue.  When State Representative Dana Hilliard and I discussed putting in the Civil Unions bill in October of 2006, just two years ago, we also realized that would be a difficult task to accomplish then.  A lot of our colleagues had urged us not to do so -- that the "timing wasn't right," and that it would be divisive, or that it would put some Democrats in a tough position.

And indeed for several months, right up to and including through the days of the first House Judiciary Committee public hearing on March 5th of 2007 on House Bill 437 (the Civil Unions legislation), we faced considerable opposition.  At times, the comments we heard even from our friends were quite uncomfortable, but we knew that it was time for Civil Unions.

As we know, Civil Unions passed.  It was a good time.  It passed thanks to a lot of Democrats in the House and Senate, quite a few Democratic Party leaders and activists working behind the scenes -- and often up front too -- and because of some Republicans as well.  It passed because former State Senator Rick Trombly, who Dana and I asked to help write the initial draft of the bill before we went to the sometimes wordy lawyers who write the specifics of bills for the Legislature, wanted to keep it as simple and clear as possible so came up with just a two page bill that has held up over time.  

And it primarily passed because many people from the LGBT community -- including our openly-gay Legislators -- came together and said let's do this.  People came together to do the right thing.  It wasn't "marriage," but it was pretty darn good.  Right now, New Hampshire stands ahead of some 45 other states in way we treat our gay and lesbian residents who call this place "home."  

Now the cause for full marriage equality has to continue.  It's good for all of us in our society to have people in caring, loving, stable marriages.  That dialogue is necessary.  Pro.  Con.  The public has to keep on thinking about this -- and asking whether it is correct, or not, to continue to discriminate against our gay and lesbian residents by not allowing full marriage equality, with the word "marriage."  

According to the New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records and Archives, as of this past week there have been 531 Civil Unions on our state.  That's since January 1st, when our Civil Unions Law took effect at 12:01 AM.  That's a lot of New Hampshire residents who have committed to one another to share their love and their lives together.  Even if the law had helped just one gay or lesbian couple, it would have been worth the fight.  It has already helped many.  

Jennifer Horn: Telling Us Exactly How She Feels

by: Dean Barker

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 22:47:42 PM EDT

"I spent my whole life saying what I believe and why I believe it. Sometimes people agree with me, sometimes they don't, but I hope that in the end they respect the fact that I'm willing to tell you exactly how I feel," Horn said in an interview with Politico.

Horn described herself as a conservative Republican but said she is more moderate in supporting civil unions for same-sex couples and favoring "common-sense restrictions to protect kids from guns."

"I oppose gay marriage and would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage ... Civil unions are a culturally redefining issue and should have been put in the hands of the people through referendum."

Note also, from the second link, that Horn is a mirror match to Bradley in NH-01 - the only Republican candidate willing to enshrine discrimination into our Constitution, instead of deferring the issue to the states, like the others.

9 Comments: The Ayotte Embarassment

by: elwood

Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:01 AM EDT

Ayotte is regularly mentioned as a rising star in the state Republican Party, most recently in today's Nashua Telegraph:

Anyone banking on the political future of the state's first woman AG today wears a broad smile.

Ayotte has a history of using her office to promote high-visibility right-wing political causes, most notably in losing the parental notification case Ayotte v Planned Parenthood before the United States Supreme Court.

This weekend's episode raises several questions about her management style, her partisanship, and her legal competence.

Ayotte Changes Position; Quits Letter to California

by: elwood

Sat May 31, 2008 at 15:18:53 PM EDT

Per NHPR, Ayotte discovered what we reported here: our civil unions law already spells out exactly how New Hampshire will treat California marriages after the ruling: we will recognize them. Therefore, her complaint that California would cause her work deciding how to proceed is just plain wrong.

Somehow Ayotte signed onto the brief without understanding what New Hampshire law actually says. Now that our law has been explained to her, she is backing down.

Good Grief! -- ANOTHER Republican Bozo, This One From Oklahoma

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 17:58:00 PM EDT

Just when a sunny day reminded us that Spring is coming near and we can take a few deep breaths of fresh air, now the Associated Press reports that a State Representative in Oklahoma is in the running to be Bozo Of The Month.  (She's in competition with Iowa Congressperson Steve King, see previous Blog post.)  And yes, it's a Republican again.  

This one is quoted by AP as said that "the homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation," and infers that we (I'll say "we" since I'm part of that agenda, I guess) are a bigger threat to our country than terrorism.  

Weird that I've never thought of any of my gay friends that way, and I hope they haven't seen me that way.  Perhaps we're scarier than I thought.  

Anyway, Representative Sally Kern of Oklahoma City told a group of Republicans -- which was recorded and posted on YouTube (thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!  [just kidding]): "I'm not gay-bashing.  But according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle.  She added, "Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has last more than a few decades.  It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation."  

Guess she hasn't read much about Greek history.  And maybe she figures Canada is doomed.  

She says she's been receiving death threats for her comments, and I certainly hope that isn't happening.  She has a right to be silly and ignorant, even hateful.  She doesn't deserve to be physically hurt for that.

But she should realize that hateful and disgusting remarks, especially from a person in her position can indeed encourage others to be hateful and hurtful, and that is what results in gay-bashing.  I and many others have been on the end of a few fists through the years.  

Compare this silly Oklahoma Republican Legislator with the many New Hampshire courageous House and Senate members -- and our Governor John Lynch -- who proudly embraced a Civil Unions law last year to offer more equality for our gay and lesbian residents.

John Lynch's story and picture signing the New Hampshire Civil Unions Law last May was carried in hundreds of newspapers throughout the world.  Let's hope this little Oklahoma Republican House member had to look at it in her own newspaper that morning, making her favorite brew and bran muffin seem a bit less satisfying on that day.

God works in mysterious ways, and I'm sure He isn't hateful and wants us all to follow an agenda of love, caring for our environment, helping the poor and the homeless among us, and providing quality education and health care for all -- priorities that each of us should embrace.  If Sally Kern of Oklahoma City really believes in God, I hope she's fighting for all those causes.  

But if she isn't, the good voters of her district should tell this Bozo that her brand of ignorant hate has no place in politics.  

By the way, she said more horrible comments in her speech and in the resulting controversy, but it pains me to give her any more mention.  A Google News search of her name will bring up much of it, for your entertainment or whatever.

Oh -- and she's a former teacher.  God help her former students.  Just where do the Republicans find Bozos like her?  

John McCain's Civil Union Flip Flop

by: Dean Barker

Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 21:29:12 PM EST

I was so busy tracking the Democratic candidates' response to our civil unions law back in April, I forgot to check on the Republicans.  Turned out Mr. McMaverick did some pretty serious twisting in the wind on that one:

In the past, Mr. McCain has been very hard to pin down on civil unions.

But today, he was clear: "I am opposed to that legislation."

While he reiterated his commitment to federalism, Mr. McCain further stated, "If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. ... Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I'm opposed to it."

It gets better. From an interview with Stephanopoulos:

   STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe that marriage should be reserved for between a man --

   McCAIN: Yes.

   STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and a woman. You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?

   McCAIN: No, I'm not. But the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a -- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that constitutional amendment in Arizona.

   STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?

   McCAIN: No. I am for ability of two -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into.

Note: title re-written because I find the changing definitions of "Federalism" at different points of US history confusing.

For Want of a Significant Other

by: hannah

Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 15:50:47 PM EST

Today's Boston Globe has a long article on how elderly people are disappearing via the probate courts.  I don't know what the provisions in New Hampshire are, but if we are sincere about people's actual and civil liberties, this is something that needs to be looked into.

01.01.08 - 12:01 AM: Civil Unions

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 20:54:35 PM EST

Okay, lots of things.  But one thing that is happening that affects some people very much is the New Hampshire Civil Unions law becomes effective.  And in some ways, it affects all of us.

It was a tough, long battle to get to this point.  Still, a lot needs to be done for full equality.  We need full marriage equality with the word, and Civil Unions don't allow for the many federal benefits otherwise given to differently-gendered couples.

BUT, the New Hampshire Civil Unions law will provide for equality under the state laws for both gay and straight couples.  That's a lot of progress.  That's more equality for gays and lesbians here than in 45 other states.  

There are those who are still attacking the thought of Civil Unions and equality.  During the past several days I've heard and read a number of those attacks, and a few have been mentioned to me face-to-face.  Hey, it happens.

But as I drive to the State House in Concord tonight to watch some of the very first Civil Unions, I'll be reminded that nothing on this planet is more important than the way we treat one another.  So many of our problems would disappear if we treated one another fairly and equally.  I can't quite figure out what motivates anyone to do otherwise.

Why are Civil Unions important? -- even for those who won't engage in one?  I think it's because of the message it sends.  

Right now there are some young people in this state -- more than just a few perhaps -- who are dreading going back to school next week where they will continue to be harassed and mocked because of being gay, or perceived to be.  Questions about one's sexual identity is one of the leading causes of suicide among young people.  

But in tomorrow's newspapers and on television, they will see couples who happen to be of the same gender committing to one another to share their lives and love together.  And they will be hearing that our state government has said that is okay.  It's okay to be gay.  That's a powerful message to everyone.    

Sometimes when I think politics is rough and tough and tumble, I think of how some people have treated me, and others, who are gay -- before we "came out," and even now.  Each and every day, gay and lesbian young people, and the older among us, have some of the cruelest things said to us and about us.  Most of us who are gay have either been beaten up or had hostile things said to us.  I've had both, even recently.  It does get personal.  And it does hurt.  

But, with Civil Unions we have made some progress.  We're not there yet.  Civil Unions open one more door for equality and acceptance for  gays and lesbians.  There are other doors to open.  There are more miles to walk.  But we will get there.

Here in New Hampshire, as of 01.01.08 - 12:01 AM, the law will say that same-gendered couples who have a Civil Union will have all of the same "rights, responsibilities, and obligations" which are currently given under our marriage statutes to differently-gendered couples.  That's more than we've ever had here.

And that's a good thing.  It's a good thing for gays and lesbians.  It's a good thing for New Hampshire.  And it's a good thing because nothing is more important than the way we treat one another -- fairly, and equally.  

What a nice way to start a new year.  

Civil Unions: A Small Step For Gays And Lesbians; A Big Step For New Hampshire

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:41:13 AM EST

Okay, my chosen title might have been adapted from the Moon landing, but it does seem to fit this issue.  

Civil Unions take effect on January 1st, 2008 at 12:01 AM.  As of this past Monday, forms for filing Civil Unions are at the town and city clerk's offices throughout New Hampshire.  I think a lot of New Hampshire gay and lesbian residents will engage in Civil Unions, and for our state and for all of us -- gay and straight -- I think it's a wonderful thing.

No, it doesn't do everything.  It isn't full marriage equality with the word.  It doesn't allow for the many federal benefits otherwise given to differently-gendered couples.  BUT, it will provide for equality under the state laws for both gay and straight couples.  That's a lot of progress.

There are those who are still attacking the thought of Civil Unions and equality.  My goodness, when will they grow up?  In the upcoming Legislative Session, yet another bill will be considered on turning back the clock - - this one changing our newly adopted Civil Unions law so that those who have similar relationships from out-of-state will not have those relationships recognized in New Hampshire.  I can't quite figure out what motivates those who want to continue discrimination.  To me, that's one of the mysteries of life.

Why are Civil Unions important? -- even for those who won't engage in one?  I think it's because of the message it sends.  

Sometimes when I think politics is rough and tough and tumble, I think of how some people have treated me, and others, who are gay -- before we "came out," and even now.  Each and every day, gay and lesbian young people, and the older among us, have some of the most cruel things said to us and about us.  Most of us who are gay have either been beaten up or had hostile things said to us.  I've had both, even recently.

Even when we're out, some people will not accept us.  The good news in a recent national survey was that some 72% of Americans say they would consider voting for a candidate who is gay or lesbian.  That is good news.  The bad news is that the same survey indicates that some 28% of Americans say that they would not consider voting for a candidate who is gay or lesbian.  That's quite a handicap for any openly gay candidate.  And that's sad.

Civil Unions open up one more door for equality and acceptance for  gays and lesbians.  No, it's not everything.  We have miles to go and promises to keep before we sleep (okay, another stolen line).  We should have full marriage equality, with the word.  We will get there.

But at least with New Hampshire Civil Unions, the law says that in our state same-gendered couples who have a Civil Union will have all of the same "rights, responsibilities, and obligations" which are currently given under our marriage statutes to differently-gendered couples.  That's more than we've ever had here.  And that's a good thing.  For gays and lesbians, that's at least a small step.

That's also more than what gays and lesbians have in forty-five other states.  So for New Hampshire, that's a big step.  

Note To Candidates: Three Good Reasons For Tuesday, January 8th As New Hampshire's Primary Date

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 20:52:57 PM EST

That scenario perhaps isn't the best we could have, but was the best we could get.  With our New Hampshire Primary date-setting flexibility, we can choose a date that fulfills our law of having our event "...7 days or more..." before a similar election, but we can't tell other states what to do.  That's where the national political parties and our friends in other states -- we do have some -- help by opening up a favorable slot for us.  

That's also where our own strategies of patience in date-setting, and discussing possibilities like "The December Option" to warn other states how determined we are to be first in the process, come into play.  Once again, all that worked to our advantage.  It's a well-tested success story for New Hampshire going back to the 1970s when other states really began challenging our lead-off status.  By giving the authority to one person, our Secretary of State, to set our primary "...7 days or more..." ahead of other states, we can maneuver in ways others cannot.  

And while Tuesday, January 8th isn't the best of all worlds for New Hampshire, that date does have its benefits:  

#1.  Our Primary is 5 days after Iowa.  Why's that a benefit?  Well, we could have been 3 days after Iowa, if the Iowa Democrats had gone to Saturday, January 5th, which was very possible, or even 1 day after Iowa, if they had chosen Monday, January 7th.  We were being squeezed quite a lot two months ago, and I think that the discussion of the possibility that we might have to move into December, and the perseverance of our Democrat and Republican Party friends here and elsewhere, helped make sure we would have 5 days after Iowa.

While 5 days after Iowa isn't a whole lot, it does give New Hampshire voters enough time -- a full weekend plus -- to absorb the results of the Iowa Caucuses in each party so that we can make our own judgements.  Remember, too, that the Democratic National Committee wanted TWO caucuses before New Hampshire -- Iowa, and the other was to be Nevada.  Now Nevada is stuck on Saturday, January 19th.  (So much for the dictators of the DNC.)  But remember the Republican National Committee has played that game in years past too, so it's not just the national dems who have had their binoculars aimed our way.

#2.  Our Primary is 7 days before any other event -- not just a "similar" event.  The next event after New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is Michigan, a week later.  Michigan itself will be important, and that's good because our job should not be to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan -- that was one reason why I wasn't a fan of "The Pledge."  Candidates should be able to run anywhere, including Florida and Michigan -- we should just want to be sure they run here, too, and that we do have 7 days or more before they run anywhere else.  Now we have those 7 days, so our relevance and impact in the presidential election process is preserved yet again.

#3.  Our Primary will have more impact than in years.  What?  Why?  Well, let's look at the schedule.  Iowa is Thursday, January 3rd.  Whatever the results -- whomever "wins" or does "better than expected" there has five days to use those results to pull off a victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, January 8th.  

Then, as soon as the results are known here on or about 8:00 PM on our Primary Election Night, those Democratic and Republican candidates who do well here -- who either win or do better than expected -- have up to three weeks to benefit from New Hampshire's Primary.  The next really big stop is Florida on Tuesday, January 29th, and then the country's "mega-primary" is on Tuesday, February 5th, when over a dozen major states vote, including New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut. During those 3 weeks after our primary, New Hampshire's impact from January 8th's results will be known, heard, and felt.

From the time of the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, January 8th, until Tuesday, January 29th, the only bumps in the road for any of the candidates of either party are Michigan (January 15th), Nevada (January 19th), and South Carolina (January 19th and January 26th). So, leading up to that very important set of primaries on February 5th, the candidates really, really, REALLY need to do well in New Hampshire -- and since they know that, we're seeing them campaign more heavily here than ever.

I think that the Iowa Caucus will be old news very quickly this election cycle.  The results of the New Hampshire Primary -- which is a "real election" where voters actually go into the privacy of voting booths to cast their vote -- will offset any discussion about whatever happened in Iowa. The results of the New Hampshire Primary will be the center of political analysis for the most part of three weeks until the series of large primaries to be held on January 29th and February 5th.  In other words, what happens here will have a lasting and lingering memory on the media and the voters.  That's good for New Hampshire's importance in 2012 and beyond.

Oh, and I'll add a 4th reason why the January 8th date is good:  it will allow us to have the Presidential candidates here as we celebrate the beginning of our Civil Unions.  The effective date of the law passed by the New Hampshire Legislature is January 1st. Maybe some will be on the guest lists?

And by having the candidates moving on from New Hampshire by Wednesday morning, January 9th, we will all be able to enjoy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day commemorations in peace and quiet.  What a state we live in!

Marriage Equality In Iowa. Oh, What A Great Idea For New Hampshire!

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 20:58:50 PM EDT

Here in New Hampshire beginning this coming January 1st, gay and lesbian couples will be able to have a Civil Union, but wouldn't it be nice if we could get full marriage?  What we did here, at least, was create a Civil Union law without first facing a decision by the courts -- we were the first state to adopt a Civil Union solely through legislative action.  It will take time, but more will come.

Our government does have three branches, as we all learned in elementary school:  an executive, a legislative, and a judiciary.  A governor can do lots of things, but is checked by the legislature.  The legislature can do lots of things, but is checked by a judiciary.  Not a bad system of government.  It's called "checks and balances."  A decent system indeed. 

For over a hundred years, especially in the South, governors and legislators -- the politicians among us -- determined that discrimination against selected Americans was okay.  In the 1950s and 1960s the judicial branch of our government stepped in with civil rights decisions that stopped that institutionalized discrimination.

When discrimination exists and needs to be fought, let's thank those courageous patriots who founded our nation and our state so long ago for their foresight.  Let's thank the courage of a court judge in Iowa for deciding people should be treated equally. 

Full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.  What a great idea that would be for New Hampshire. 

Oh wouldn't it be nice?

Dodd on Civil Unions Legislation

by: Matt Browner Hamlin

Thu May 31, 2007 at 14:45:03 PM EDT

Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd today released the following statement following Governor John Lynch signing  the New Hampshire Civil Unions Bill into law.

"I applaud Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire Legislature for passing the Civil Unions legislation, ensuring that all couples enjoy the same rights and freedoms regardless of their sexual orientation," said Dodd.  "With two young daughters of my own, I want to ensure that they grow up in a world that is free of discrimination. That is why I supported Civil Unions in my home state of Connecticut and it is why I am proud to see John Lynch and the State Legislature doing the right thing here in New Hampshire."

That's an interesting question. I've done this for years when people raise the issue. I simply ask audiences before I tell you what my view is on it I want you to spend just thirty seconds thinking about something I'm going to say to you.

How would you like your children and grandchildren treated if they were to be raised, and I don't know what your sexual orientation is, if their sexual orientation was different?

If my two daughters were a different sexual orientation from my wife and I, how would I want my two daughters treated, in terms of housing, job opportunities, whether or not they can be protected against hate crimes and the like, how would you like your children and grandchildren to be treated?

And if your answer is, "I'd like them to be treated equally and fairly as any other human being should be," then the answer, I think, becomes rather simple.

I'm very proud of the fact that my state and your state, by the way, I'm very proud of your governor John Lynch, proud of your state legislators here. It didn't take a court order in New Hampshire and it didn't take one in Connecticut either to recognize that civil unions ought to be allowed and supported and endorsed.

Lynch Has Signed Civil Unions Law

by: elwood

Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:27:29 AM EDT

Congratulations and thanks to all those who worked hard and long for this.

At 10:00 AM WMUR reports that he has signed it.

"We in New Hampshire have had a long and proud tradition taking the lead and opposing discrimination," Lynch said as he signed the bill. "Today, that tradition continues."

When will Gov. Lynch sign Civil Unions into law?

by: Love Child

Mon May 21, 2007 at 18:48:27 PM EDT

Oregon Governor Signs Civil Unions Bill

by: elwood

Wed May 09, 2007 at 17:12:48 PM EDT

Meanwhile, Oregon's Governor signed civil unions today. They started later and completed earlier than us.

It doesn't really matter -- the New Hampshire bill won't take effect until Jan 1, 2008 regardless of when it is signed...

NH GOP Wears Rose-colored Glasses, Sees Victory in '08

by: Mike Caulfield

Sun May 06, 2007 at 21:40:46 PM EDT

Many Republicans point to the new Democratic-controlled Legislature in justifying their bullish outlook. They say much of the legislation championed by Democrats is at odds with popular opinion and will make it easy to portray them as out of touch and extremist.

...

In recent interviews with more than a dozen Republicans, several early strategies from the 2008 GOP playbook emerged. Republicans plan to highlight a handful of Democratic-sponsored bills that they say erode New Hampshire's tradition of small-government and conservatism: the establishment of same-sex civil unions, mandatory seat belt use for adults, a smoking ban in bars and restaurants, and requiring boat lifejackets for children, among others. None of those bills has yet become law, but that hasn't stopped Republicans from blaming the Democrats.

I'll admit, I'm ambivalent about the smoking ban, and I don't like the seat belt law.

But that's going to work the base into a froth? Really?

Or could it be that all those other issues are just window-dressing for a GOP gearing up for "gay men are scary" campaign?

Remember to thank our Democratic politicians for thier bravery on this issue. We wil win next time, but it won't be easy. We know that, and it was worth it.