Statement From the Union Leader On Gay Wedding Announcements

by: Putney Swope

Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 18:58:33 PM EDT

Joe McQuaid is wrong - New Hampshire has never been a referendum state and he should know better than to claim this law should be subject to a referendum.

What Governor Lynch said before he signed the bill into law is irrelevant to whether the UL should publish gay wedding announcements. Act like a mature adult, Joe.

Joe, you are anti-gay. There are years of editorials proving this.

I have been told that the UL may be violating Human Rights statutes, from someone who works in that office.

The UL publishes articles about many topics they disagree with already, such as articles about Democrats and liberals. This arguement is meaningless.

This statement will be adding fuel to the outrage over this policy.  

Texas GOP Platform Calls for Criminalizing Gay Sex And Marriages

by: Putney Swope

Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:12:24 AM EDT

Will John Sununu and the NH Republican Party disavow these planks from the Texas GOP Party Platform? http://static.texastribune.org...

Will Sununu and the NH GOP continue to be out of step with the views of the people of New Hampshire?

Gay Couples Get Equal Tax Treatment

by: Putney Swope

Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 15:51:59 PM EDT

This ruling applies to California and possibly Washington and Nevada because of state community-property laws.

The article states the IRS might have changed their opinion because of the influence of the Obama administration, although the IRS cited state laws for the change.

It did not mention if there would be any tax rule changes in same-sex marriage or civil union states.

The National Organization for Marriage airs TV ad attacking Governor Lynch for lying

by: Putney Swope

Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 14:01:27 PM EDT

Governor Lynch never said he would veto the same-sex marriage bill; he said he was against it.

The Governor was then open-minded enough to hear the testimony presented both in favor and against the marriage bill and changed his mind.The Governor should be applauded for listening to both sides of the issue!

It is the National Organization for Marriage that is lying about what actually took place.

Both Cornerstone and the NOM have been loose with the facts regarding this issue - most recently in their interpretation of the anti-marriage warrants during town elections last month.

Town of Plainfield *crushes* article on marriage

by: Ed Tracey

Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 11:25:44 AM EDT

Not only did voters not approve the article, but, by a vote of 185-40, they amended it to instruct the Selectboard to write a letter to the governor and state legislators "commending them for passing and signing into law legislation affirming marriage equality for all New Hampshire residents."

More after the jump ....

We have to be prepared to counter the 'repeal HB 436' effort

by: Putney Swope

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 22:26:55 PM EST

There will be hearings next year in Concord on a bill to repeal HB 436, the same-sex marriage bill. We have to take this attack on our right to marry seriously - we can't take anything for granted.

This threat cannot be ignored - we have to be prepared to defeat this bill.  

The Republican argument in favor of same sex marriage

by: Putney Swope

Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:04:52 AM EDT

Boies, in an op-ed article in today's Wall Street  Journal writes: "Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."

Read the entire article at http://online.wsj.com/article/...  

Hard-hitting "Valley News" editorial on Governor Lynch

by: Ed Tracey

Sun May 10, 2009 at 11:11:57 AM EDT

Too Much Talking - Act on Gay Marriage, Gov. Lynch

(Lynch) can sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature. But he can't ignore it. Meantime, he wants to talk. But first he needs to sort out his in-box (the governor's office is busily tallying e-mail messages, according to spokesman Colin Manning).

All this talking and tallying is unnecessary. Gov. Lynch .... has said that "marriage" ought to be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. If that's still what he thinks, then he could follow the example of Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, who wasn't so reluctant to speak his mind. Douglas declared, with some eloquence, his intention to veto Vermont's same-sex marriage bill.

Or he could follow the example of Maine Gov. John Baldacci, who, like Lynch, supported civil unions but opposed gay marriage. Within hours of legislative approval, however, Baldacci signed Maine's same-sex marriage bill, saying, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage." He apparently came to this belief without cleaning out his in-box.

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.

Senator Clegg Proposes Civil Unions For All

by: jwgoodwin

Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 21:05:30 PM EST

"Marriage is a religious ceremony," Clegg told the AP. "The bill is not just for gays and lesbians; it's for anybody."

He said the measure would allow all adults to enter into "contractual cohabitation" agreements and receive the legal benefits married couples have in the state.

[Contractual cohabitation?  Two weeks before Valentines Day?  Yech!]

This is probably a good step, with a Republican accepting the next phase in the march to true marriage equality.  It has the benefit of allowing the bigots to vote for it without really doing it for gays (after all, it's for everyone!), yet lets these same bigots preserve the "marriage is only between a man and woman."

But still it's weird -- and stupid -- to have two different civil definitions of the same legal rights under different statutes and names. 

It's not going to be illegal for a gay couple to hold a religious ceremony to commemorate their civil union, or for a heterosexual couple with a marriage license to have a civil ceremony.  The whole "religious/civil" distinction is ridiculous.

So, outside of letting some bigots feel better about doing the right thing, what the hell is the point?

Same-Sex Spousal Unions: It's About Time. The Discrimination Has To Stop.

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:41:17 PM EST

There is nothing more important than the way we treat one another.  While we can't cure all of this planet's wrongs, at least we should resolve that here in New Hampshire and now in 2007, we will create equality in our laws for same-sex unions.

I have been openly gay for over 20 years, and I feel discrimination or disapproval just about every day -- in the workplace, or in my community, my neighborhood, or in politics.  It happens.

But worse is the discrimination I see toward others who are gay or lesbian.  It just isn't right.  The discrimination has to stop.

I know many of my gay and lesbian friends want to have the word "marriage" as part of any law allowing unions.  I do too.

But I also know many of my gay and lesbian friends feel that what is most important right now is that those rights, responsibilities, and obligations of union are equally shared.  We have waited too long as it is.

If some 5-10% of our population is gay and lesbian, there are about 70,000 to 140,000 among us in New Hampshire.  The discrimination has to stop.

For years, New Hampshire has been on the crest of providing more equality for our gay and lesbian residents.  Our state is one of just 20 in the nation that provides for civil rights equality in areas of services, housing, and employment.  In most of the country, people can still be fired just for being gay, but in the mid-1990s New Hampshire adopted a law offering protection.

That, and other protections, exist because of the leadership of people like State Senator Rick Trombly, State Representatives Mo Baxley, Ray Buckley, Marlene DeChane, Nick Panagopoulos, Dana Hilliard, and Bill McCann, and Governor Jeanne Shaheen, among others. 

However, official discrimination in our state still exists in many of our relationship and financial laws.  While I am in favor of full marriage equality with the word "marriage" -- a position I have publicly held and spoken out for since the early 1990s -- I feel that we can no longer wait to have equality in those three important words -- "rights," "responsibilities," and "obligations," and that is what a spousal union bill will do. 

Civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, and now New Jersey are providing a good degree of equality in those states, although I and many others who are gay and lesbian would much more prefer the Massachusetts approach of full marriage equality.  California has just adopted laws providing for marriage equality, again without that word. 

While it will be controversial and there is some hope in some Democratic circles that we avoid certain contentious issues, the time for more open dialogue about full marriage equality is here.  I and others will be introducing legislation to accomplish some important steps in this area, and it is time New Hampshire moves positively. 

It's about time.  People 50 years from now will wonder why we have waited so long already.  The discrimination has to stop.

What do you think?

Ballz to the Wall for Equality

by: Nicholas Gunn

Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 12:45:11 PM EST

Today is no exception.  The Monitor found Governor Lynch's proposal for yet another commission to `study' the issue of equality unacceptable.  The published a staff editorial which I will post in its entirety.  (If this is a problem, I will cut it)

No more study, please

The 2007 Legislature will see at least two bills to make civil unions legal for same-sex couples. In response, Gov. John Lynch has suggested, through a spokesman, that he may deploy one of the most potent weapons ever designed to kill time, a committee. He should not make good on that threat.

It's true the legislative commission former governor Craig Benson appointed to study the implications of legalizing same-sex marriage was fatally compromised by the lack of objectivity of many of its members. The group's tempestuous meetings and bigoted conclusions embarrassed the state. But no matter how fairly constituted the next group could be, its contribution to the debate would be insignificant compared with the real-world experiences of neighboring states. Vermont made civil unions legal in 2000, and Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriage in 2004.

The governor opposes gay marriage but, without making his position on civil unions clear, has voiced support for equal rights for all citizens. Creating a committee to study the issue would simply allow him to maintain that vague stance indefinitely.

Support for civil unions has increased. According to the latest poll taken for the Monitor, 44 percent of New Hampshire residents favor civil unions, 40 percent oppose them and 16 percent are undecided.

The governor could take the lead on this issue and make his position clear, or he could wait to see whether a bill lands on his desk. The former course would be preferable, the latter understandable. But as for another study commission, to paraphrase the late, great singer James Brown, "Please, please, please don't . . ."

When New Hampshire becomes the second state in the country to institute civil unions for gays and lesbians through legislative action, It will be in no small part due to the efforts of the Concord Monitor.

Creative Headlining

by: Mike Caulfield

Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 10:23:38 AM EST

To refresh your memory, the poll says that the majority of New Hampshirites favor do not oppose civil unions, but do not favor gay marriage yet.

The original CM story was titled: Poll Shows Support for Civil Unions.

Here's the UL headline: Most in NH Oppose Gay Marriage.

Sorry - shooting fish in a barrel, I suppose. Does the editor of the UL really think the most interesting thing about that poll is that a majority don't favor gay marriage? Especially considering that the bills currently in the legislature concern civil unions?

The AP story is worth a read, though.

Also, given that the article mentions there are two bills in the legislature regarding this, I'd love to see a comparison of the two on this site. Perhaps we could get full text of them, or better yet contact their sponsors?

Update: It appears the "against gay marriage" spin has been picked up both locally (Keene Sentinel) and nationally. I'm surprised, to say the least. If anybody can explain how this happens (chain of events), let me know.

Ready for Civil Unions?

by: Nicholas Gunn

Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 14:52:51 PM EST

New Hampshire residents oppose gay marriage but look more favorably on civil unions.

Fifty-five percent of the 600 people interviewed opposed allowing gays to marry, compared with 35 percent in favor. Ten percent weren't sure.

Asked their opinion of civil unions, 44 percent favored allowing it. Forty percent opposed civil unions and 16 percent weren't sure.

Click on 'There's More' for the rest.

Concord Monitor endorses Civil Unions

by: Nicholas Gunn

Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 02:35:03 AM EST

Fiscal reality should and will temper the aspirations of New Hampshire's newly Democratic Legislature. But it will cost nothing to right a truly major wrong, the discrimination against homosexuals inherent in state law. The next session of the Legislature should legalize civil unions and grant inheritance, visitation, custody and other rights currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples to same-sex partners in committed relationships.

Legislative Issues: Same Sex Marriage

by: Nicholas Gunn

Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:42:43 PM EST

This spring, members of the NHDP, including the newly elected state senator Deb Reynolds, were a part of a committee to compose a platform for the NHDP. This group held a feedback session in my area, so I made sure to attend.  One of the planks in the platform was legal recognition, and domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples.  I was thrilled, and I asked them to make sure it stayed in the platform.

Well, it didn't.  By the time of the convention in May, it had mysteriously disappeared.  I asked Deb Reynolds why, and she said essentially that some members of the party didn't think this issue should be a priority because it doesn't sell well.

At this point, most of the active Democrats in my area essentially agreed with Deb.  Well, that changed after I scheduled Mo Baxley, the Executive Director for New Hampshire Freedom to Marry to speak at our regional democrats June meeting.  I wrote a diary about this on the DailyKos.