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
If only Rep. Will Smith had cited an expert like George Rekers - as he had done before to let us know that gays and lesbians cannot be good parents - we might have a law allowing us to arrest health insurance companies for not dropping us for pre-existing conditions.
Won't someone think of the insurance companies' freedom?
As more and more New Hampshire communities clearly reject discrimination and instead voice support for marriage equality, our attention turns to how federal discrimination harms married gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire:
Tonight in Concord, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) will host a workshop about "DOMA and Your Marriage" and outline what federal discrimination means for newly married couples in New Hampshire.
Janson Wu, a staff attorney with GLAD will provide legal information regarding Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and how it affects the marriages of same-sex couples in New Hampshire.
Section 3 of DOMA specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal law, effectively denying all married same-sex couples the federal rights and responsibilities that typically accompany marriage, despite New Hampshire's decision to treat those couples as legally married at the state level. In light of Section 3 of DOMA, many questions and problems arise for New Hampshire's married same-sex couples. How should same-sex married couples file their 2011 federal tax returns in light of DOMA? Can a same-sex married couple access Social Security spousal and survivor benefits? What if one spouse is a federal employee - how does DOMA affect their health benefits and retirement pensions? What if one spouse gets sick - can the other spouse take time off to take care of the sick spouse? What if one spouse is not a citizen - what is the best way to deal with these immigration issues?
Wu will also discuss GLAD's federal court case, Gill v. OPM, challenging Section 3 of DOMA and what a potential victory in that case would mean for New Hampshire residents.
As I mentioned, the first workshop is tonight, followed by a second on the Seacoast. To RSVP or, if you are unable to attend, get notes, email info@granitestateprogress.org. (Workshops are cosponsored by Granite State Progress, PFLAG - New Hampshire, and SEIU 1984's Lavender Caucus.)
Concord
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
6:00 - 7:30 PM
State Employees Association, 207 N. Main Street
Portsmouth
Thursday, May 20, 2010
6:00 - 7:30 PM
South Church, 292 State Street
Rep. Will Smith in the UL a year ago, on why gays and lesbians can't be good parents, or somesuch bigotry:
House Bill 436 would redefine "marriage" so as to include people of the same sex. Two years ago, the Legislature introduced the concept of civil unions so as to give same-sex couples most of the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples under a concept of fairness. To extend the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples would indicate that the state believes that same-sex couples are equally as effective in raising children as heterosexual couples.
This is contradicted by numerous studies, including "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption and Foster Parenting," by George A. Rekers, professor at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. This study concludes that, on average, raising children in same-sex homes "uniquely endangers foster children by exposing them to a substantial level of harmful stresses that are over and above usual stress levels in heterosexual foster homes."
I wonder what that child care expert prof is up to these days?
A pair of writers at the Miami New Times are having trouble repressing their glee that they managed to snap (with their "hot-pink digital camera") George Alan Rekers, a right-wing Christian leader and anti-gay lobbyist, getting off a plane at Miami International Airport with a sizzling-hot gay escort. The prostitute, nicknamed "Lucien" by the paper, was available for hire on the gay-escort site Rentboy.com - home of such other celebrity boyfriends/escorts as Jason Preston, former lover of designer Marc Jacobs. Rekers wouldn't deny he found Lucien on that site, but he did say he'd only hired him to help while he was "recovering from surgery" - that's why he took him on an all-expenses paid ten-day trip through Europe. After all, Rekers did co-found the group Focus on the Family, which has been the bane of gay-rights groups since its creation in 1983, and he also is an officer of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a gay-cure group. Someone like that would NEVER actually hire a gay hooker, right?
Normally when closeted hypocrites get exposed, I leave it alone because I find it kind of sad. But this excuse for an academic was being used by the anti-marriage crowd here to tell same-sex couples that they are inherently bad parents. Shame on him.
I find the most interesting things while viewing TPM. This time, an ad caught my eye. It asked the reader to sign a petition against marriage equality in New Hampshire. Curious as to where it was coming from, I clicked and found this.
It was signed by Euene Delgaudio. Who is he? Is he even from New Hampshire? The answer is "no". But there is a Wiki page on him:
Eugene Delgaudio currently represents the Sterling District on the Loudoun County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors. He is also the executive director of the conservative non-profit organization.Public Advocate of the U.S According to the Washington Post, "Delgaudio has become a leader in the nation's anti-gay rights movement".[1] He is also called "one of the key leaders"[2] in the conservative view of "moral health". He has also appeared on Fox News,[3] opposing the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, suggesting Ann Coulter instead.
Ad Claims Contradicted by the Very Articles it Cites; Cites Newspaper Story from the future
CONCORD - Recent National Organization for Marriage ads are false, misleading and deceptive and television stations should immediately pull them, lawyers representing the New Hampshire Democratic Party have told the stations.
The ads make claims that are contradicted by the very articles it cites; cites a newspaper story from two months in the future; and cites as "proof", newspaper stories that do not back up its false claims.
The ads are being run by the National Organization for Marriage, an out-of-state group that is facing ethics investigations in three states - Maine, Iowa and California.
"Gov. John Lynch has cut state spending, kept New Hampshire's taxes and state spending among the lowest in the nation, and balanced the budget even in difficult times," said Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. "It is the National Organization for Marriage that is lying to advance its hidden agenda of hate and discrimination."
Potential Republican gubernatorial candidate John Stephen quickly embraced the ad and the National Organization for Marriage.
"John Stephen didn't let the truth stand in the way of his attempts at political advancement in the past, and nothing has changed," said Buckley. "John Stephen supports the lies and hate agenda of this out-of-state group because he wants to distract voters from his record of ethical transgressions and financial mismanagement. In these tough times lies are not enough. Facts matter."
The ad claims Governor John Lynch "lied" when he said the 2009 budget was balanced, and then cites as "proof," a Concord Monitor article that discusses the state using Rainy Day Fund money to "balance the 2008-2009 budget."
The NOM ad falsely claims that state spending increased 27 percent, and cites as "proof" a Union Leader editorial that does not mention Gov. Lynch, and does not say that state spending increased 27 percent in the past two years. In fact, according to the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, state spending will decrease in 2008-2009, and increased only 8 percent in the previous two years - below the average of previous governors.
The ad even cites an article from the "May 21, 2010" edition of the Union Leader.
Links to the letter, and back-up material showing NOM's blatant inaccuracies are included below.
Copy of Letter to WMUR - https://docs.google.com/filevi...
Link to Concord Monitor Article - https://docs.google.com/filevi...
Link to Union Leader Article - https://docs.google.com/filevi...
Link Center for Public Policy Budget Presentation - https://docs.google.com/filevi...
(Posted by Harrell Kirstein, deputy press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party.)
Pindell gets the Gov's reaction to the out-of-state intolerance brigade's media swarm:
"I'm disgusted with it. I think it's an attack on New Hampshire."
The ad, paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, is running on WMUR and cable television outlets. The group said they are spending $200,000 to air the ads
This is exactly right, and exactly the way to treat Maggie's out-of-state, ethically dubious front group.
In the comments to my earlier post on this, Douglas made an incredibly perceptive observation:
No other Governor is in the position Lynch is in with respect to marriage equality. Vermont's Governor (a Republican) vetoed it and was overruled. Maine's Governor signed it, but it was repealed by referendum before it had the chance to take effect. Every other state that has it got it by a judicial ruling.
John Lynch is the only executive in this country who has ever signed a law that granted marriage equality. And that deserves some serious support from the progressive community.
Many thanks to a reader who sent this along; it almost flew under the radar. Which is a crime, since the sheer, politically-driven, destructive cynicism of what DC establishment GOPer Judd Gregg participated in deserves to be made widely known to his constituents in the Granite State.
As we all know, the Judd Gregg led approach to stopping the passage of health care reform was both to challenge as many aspects of the bill as they could with the senate parliamentarian, and to try to offer as many amendments as they could during the time allotted for debate on the reconciliation sidecar bill.
They knew these were bogus amendments, meant to get Democrats to vote against stupid sounding things for the purposes of campaign ads in the fall (banning Viagara for sex offenders, to use just one extraordinarily cynical example).
Which makes the following amendment offered during that time all the more monstrous:
Tuesday afternoon, John reported that Senator Robert Bennett had offered an anti-gay amendment to the reconciliation bill currently being debated in the Senate:
...On the Senate floor, according to the Senate transcript, Bennett said his amendment (the transcript came in caps):"THIS BILL DOES NOT TAKE ANY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO GAY MARRIAGE, SIMPLY ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO HOLD A REFERENDUM." Well then, what a coincidence that it's the exact position of the National Organization for Marriage and Bishop Harry Jackson, the leading opponents of marriage in DC.
Judd Gregg voted for this. Interestingly, so did all other GOPers save Collins and Snowe.
It is hard to take in the monstrosity of this vote. Judd Gregg voted to strip some residents of people who live far away from New Hampshire of their marriage rights, and under the same bogus "Let the People Decide" scheme that was so overwhelmingly defeated here.
And he did it entirely within the scope and for the purposes of weakening a health care bill for all Americans.
For the second time in as many weeks, the Union Leader tried to spin the anti-marriage petition effort's massive fail in a misleading direction. Their effort today was so one-sided it felt like I was reading a Cornerstone release verbatim.
Cornerstone/LetNHVote The UL would have you believe that there is almost a 2/3rds majority support for writing discrimination into our constitution. Instead of dignifying that misleading spin with a verbal response, here's a map that Granite State Progress put together. The towns that rejected the article, as well as those where the anti-marriagers couldn't even scratch up the requisite petition signatures, are in blue, while those towns where it passed are in green (not passed by the 2/3rds needed for a constitutional amendment, mind you, just the sum of those passed):
And for those who prefer charts to pictures, here's webpage with a spreadsheet of the results.
Let's be clear here, since the Union Leader, and, to my dismay, plenty of other false equivalence pieces in other state media organs won't:
* The anti-marriage crowd couldn't even get on the ballot in 73 communities (and wasn't on the ballot in 13 cities, which don't have non-binding warrant resolutions).
* Where it did, it was rejected in 80 communities and adopted in 59.
As Granite State Progress' report on this details (below the fold, required reading), it is not clear to what extent the National Organization for Marriage was behind this effort in strategy and funding. What is clear, however, is that town by town, our great state said no to this obviously coordinated movement to strip the rights away from some of our tax-paying, patriotic citizens in the Live Free or Die state.
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?
According to the latest tally (3/12) from Let NH Vote, 21 towns passed their anti-marriage article by the 2/3rds vote that would be needed for a constitutional amendment.
Wiki tells me there are 221 towns and 13 cities in the Live Free or Die State.
So that means, pending final numbers, that 8.9% of our towns and cities had the requisite votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment to strip away the rights of some of our patriotic, tax-paying, fellow Granite Staters.
Considering that zero cities are among those communities that passed the article by 2/3rds, that 8.9% is excessively generous when you factor in actual population.
So my question is: was the Union Leader suckered by press releases from well-funded out-of-state groups when they rushed to judgment, or were they eager to set the narrative against tolerance themselves?
Update: 3/15/10 from New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. The numbers to-date are: 88 towns and all 13 NH cities refused to take up the issue in the first place, while 70 towns that did voted against the anti-equality warrant article. 88 + 13 + 70 = 171 (73%) of New Hampshire's 234 cities and towns stand for equality. If you calculated this based on population, the percentage would be even higher.
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.
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.
You know, sometimes it's great to be wrong. Last week I was feeling gloomy after the first set of New Hampshire towns voted overwhelmingly for the non-binding petition ("warrant article") that asked their state legislators to put an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot. Although most towns voting on March 9th did pass the bigoted article, I incorrectly extrapolated that result to the entire state. How happy I am today to read that, as we factor in the results from towns that had town meeting yesterday, March 13th, 77% of New Hampshire towns and cities have rejected the call to put discrimination into their constitution!
Final numbers have yet to be posted, but here are the stats to-date:
According to the Union Leader, 133 of the New Hampshire's 221 towns had the anti-marriage article in their town hall warrant. This means that, from the start, 88 of New Hampshire's towns refused to take the issue up in the first place. That's almost 40% of towns that couldn't muster the few dozen people needed to sign a petition to place the anti-equality article on the warrant.
None of New Hampshire's 13 cities entertained the question at all.
During earlier deliberative sessions, 15 towns amended their anti-equality warrants, rendering them meaningless or turning them into pro-equality statements.
Of the 133 towns voting on it, the warrant article's sponsor reports that it passed in its original hate-mongering form in 53 towns and failed in 43 towns (23 towns via direct vote and 20 towns via tabling).
Passing the article in only 53 towns out 234 towns and cities means that barely 23% of New Hampshire's towns and cities voted to put discrimination in New Hampshire's constitution. In other words, 77% of towns and cities rejected institutionalized bigotry. This is a resounding failure for the anti-equality activists because 2/3 of voters are needed to ratify an amendment to the New Hampshire constitution. Clearly, when the New Hampshire House in February voted against the marriage equality repeal bill, and voted against the anti-equality constitutional amendment bill, they were quite faithfully representing their constituents.
Was this all really just about marriage? Dean Barker adds this perspective:
The bottom line is: if this were an actual vote on a binding constitutional amendment, it would have been hugely unsuccessful. But let's be clear on what this really is - the first effort from the state GOP to scare up social issue voters for November. Being bankrupt of ideas, and peddling the same economic policies that brought us to the brink when they were in charge, they've got to GOTV somehow.
Below are reports from some of the town meetings held on Saturday, March 13th, as reported in the blogs and online Sunday papers.
Update: Just wondering if NOM will also admit they were wrong in prematurely stating that "New Hampshire Voters WANT a Vote ON Marriage".
John Gregg in the Valley News (sorry, off-line) reports that in New London "residents at Town Meeting Wednesday resoundingly defeated a measure seeking to overturn the state's new gay marriage law after hearing from a gay couple who cemented a 50-year partnership by marrying last month."
But that's not the best part. New London GOP state rep David Kidder spoke at Town Meeting like the Yankee Republicans who used to hold sway in this state (boldface and any errors in transcription mine):
Kidder yesterday said he told a "huge crowd" of about 250 people that repealing gay marriage would create a "legal quagmire" for couples who had originally gotten civil unions because of the way the gay marriage law was written.
He also made a key point to the crowd about representative democracy.
"We're not a referendum state, nor should we be. The (New Hampshire) constitution is very clear that the power to make these decisions is with the Legislature, and certainly to take away someone's rights in the constitution after the fact just seems to me to be absolutely wrong," he said in a phone interview yesterday.
Mind you, Rep. Kidder voter against marriage equality.
Apparently there are some Republicans left in this state with respect for our civic institutions.
This article has been defeated in over 1/3 of the towns so far. News reports have been largely ignoring the towns that defeat it by "skipping over" the question. They also are ignoring the more than a dozen towns that defeated it in the deliberative sessions. My own town of Brookline voted about 3-1 to skip over this article last night.
Also, with the notable exception of the Union Leader's recent article, most have not pointed out that an actual constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 super majority. Very few of these towns have passed it by that margin.
What votes they do have are inflated by wording that encourages supporters of marriage equality to vote for the article and the fact that the larger, more liberal, cities are not voting on it, only the smaller, more conservative towns.
Even if you just look at the towns that had warrant articles, had this been an actual constitutional amendment vote, it would be going down in flames.
And equally wise words from Rep. Jim Splaine:
State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said the wording of the resolution was vague, turnout was small, and most town voters had budgets and spending on their minds.
"This was really raw politics by those, mostly conservative Republicans, who want to dictate their agenda on the state," Splaine said.
..."It's not the New Hampshire way to take away rights from people," Splaine said.
Oh, and what about New Hampshire's tradition of freedom and tolerance? Here's a graf from a NH Freedom to Marry release:
Here is a list of towns that rejected the resolution. This list does not include the 88 towns and 13 cities that refused to take the issue up; Alstead, Andover, Barrington, Bethlehem, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Brookfield, Chesterfield, Deerfield, Easton, Franconia, Gilsum, Goffstown, Groveton, Hebron, Hudson, Kensington, Lee, Lincoln, Lisbon, Lyman, Monroe, Meredith, Newbury, Nelson, New Hampton, New London, Plymouth, Rindge, Rye, Sugar Hill, Winchester, Wolfeboro, Washington.
Let us know more details from your towns as they come in.
The bottom line is: if this were an actual vote on a binding constitutional amendment, it would have been hugely unsuccessful. But let's be clear on what this really is - the first effort from the state GOP to scare up social issue voters for November. Being bankrupt of ideas, and peddling the same economic policies that brought us to the brink when they were in charge, they've got to GOTV somehow.
So the anti-marriage crowd is trying to make hay over the fact that some parts of New Hampshire adopted their stealth attempt to insert discrimination into our constitution, and alarm bells are going off among some in the wider LGBT community.
Governor Stephen, in 2011, repealing marriage equality:
"Gay couples should be given the opportunity to enter into contractual arrangements as anyone. However, the federal government should not be forced to recognize civil unions that are attempts at marriage by another name."
As a side note, has the NHGOP yet realized what a mistake this is? John Stephen makes possible something heretofore elusive: a wildly enthused Democratic base - for John Lynch! I mean, our Stephen tag says it all; the guy was a DHHS disaster.
And furthermore, it invites welcome scrutiny into the Craig Benson era, and Stephen's and Ayotte's roles in it.
Yesterday, New Hampshire legislators protected marriage equality by rejecting two bills: HB1590 and CACR28. HB1590 would repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, and CACR28 would amend the NH Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. While both bills were defeated, it makes one wonder why other people's unions should be such a cause for concern. The chief proponents of anti-gay propaganda-the religious right-seems to think that their views must be imposed upon everybody, completely disregarding what the U.S. Constitution says.
Conservative Christian organizations hold fast to their belief that we are a Christian nation, and that the word of God, as they interpret it from the Bible, should be enforced in the U.S.. It is true that Christianity has positively influenced both Americans and our history in countless ways. But what the religious right fails to realize is that this nation was never meant to be an enforcer of religious doctrine. And while it's true that the U.S. has enforced religious laws in the past, the Constitution strongly indicates that laws made on a religious basis are invalid.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [.]" These words established one of our most cherished and fundamental rights--to believe what we choose and to worship as we please. However, it is important to note that our founders also initiated the separation of church and state. Our government cannot--and should not--approve or disapprove of religion: this policy is necessary to promote equal and fair treatment of all citizens. Putting these historic facts into the context of the marriage issue, the critical question is: by prohibiting gay marriage, is our government endorsing and/or rejecting religious ideology?
The answer to this question seems to be: yes, our government is endorsing religion by prohibiting gay marriage. The argument pushed by those who oppose these marriages claim that by allowing them, we are destroying the American family. And just where do these groups draw their definition of the American family from? The answer is nearly unanimous: the Christian Bible. Of course, there are other factors, namely homophobia, ignorance, and adherence to "tradition."
The religious beliefs of homosexuals also comes into play. Our government cannot restrict how people practice their beliefs, and this means that a person can decide to accept homosexuality in their religion. Taken to the extreme, homosexuals could legally create their own religion that considers homosexuality completely acceptable. And since our government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," a ban on gay marriage can become an infringement on citizens' religious rights.
Of course, these answers alone are not enough to validate gay marriage. Many of those in opposition to it claim that they are acting for the good of the country, to save America's families from this corruption. This is not an invalid claim. If an offender says that the first amendment gives the right, in the name of religious belief, to steal or murder, he is nonetheless punished for his crime. The restriction of government from accepting or rejecting religious ideology is no excuse for allowing harmful behavior. So we now have another critical question to answer: does gay marriage pose a threat to the American people's well being?
Despite what the opposing organizations say, there is scant evidence that homosexuals (and therefore their unions) are harmful to anybody. This can be most clearly seen in the few states that have permitted gay marriage. Their social structure has not been decimated or reduced to barbarianism. Like most of us, the majority of gays and lesbians live decent, law-abiding lives, and are not interested in destroying the meaning of family. Rather, they simply want to be accepted and treated fairly in our society, just like everyone else. It is unfortunately true that there are some radicals who behave just as the anti-gay marriage groups claim, antagonizing people and acting hostile toward the traditional ideas of family. It is important, however, to remember that they are in the minority, just like the civil rights advocates who favored violence were a minority to those who favored peace.
With the religious organizations and the gay rights advocates refusing to back down from the fight, there is no clear end to this struggle. While their concerns are understandable, religious groups are violating individual rights by trying to ban gay marriage and causing grief for an untold number of couples. We are in the middle of a movement against prejudice, the third major civil rights movement, and creating progress will be no easier than in the previous two. America will have to decide whether we prefer homosexuals to stay locked in the closet or to come out and get some fresh air.
Inspired by one of our posters who supports marriage equality, and is also a member of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, I did a perusal of the roll call votes on CACR 28, and HB1590, and found many of the candidates the NHLA endorsed for State House voted to deny individuals the fundamental right to legal marriage.
NHLA endorsed candidates include: Nancy Elliot(R-Merrimack), Al Baldasaro(R-Londonderry), William O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon), Daniel Itse(R-Fremont), and Jordan Ulery(R-Hudson)
These people, interestingly enough are also very much against a woman's right to choose.
How does this square with the NHLA's stated purpose (from their website)?
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance is a non-partisan coalition working to increase individual freedom in New Hampshire.
It seems to me that individual choice with respect to intimate decisions should be paramount. But it isn't if one looks at the records of these and other individuals endorsed by this group.
Is it really individual liberty they are promoting? Or the liberty of monied interests of all stripes to do what they please in this state?
Then we'll be left with a government that will not help you if you're poor, sick, disabled, or elderly, nor educate children, but will sniff around your bedroom, dictate your intimate relationships and, if you're a woman, control your bodily integrity. That's liberty? Strange.
Adding (Dean): More fauxbertarianism? My own rep from Andover, Jennifer Coffey, who is a Free Stater but who runs as a Republican, voted for the repeal of marriage equality. How's that for Liberty?
Courtesy PHB, a selection from the transcript of Rep. Cebrowski's Marriage Is Make-Believe argument:
And I've got a grandson who's got all the Darth Vader gear. Light saber, helmet, shirt and so on. And he says to me, "Gaggy I am Darth Vader", and I say "Yes, yes, of course you are! You are the master of the Death Star. You are the master of the Galaxy!" And he absolutely loves it!
This fantasy, these flights of imagination, this game-playing, is great. It's fun. With children. With children. But here we are ladies and gentlemen. We're talking about adults. Adults. This is serious business.
Ignoring the 40 Republicans who voted to preserve marriage equality, Cornerstone's Kevin Smith told the AP: ""It is quite clear that this Legislature is just completely out of touch with the will of the people, who want to the right to have their say on the issue of gay marriage," [Smith] said Wednesday after the vote on the amendment. "The bottom line though is they are going to get their say at the ballot box this November when they get to elect new officials who represent their interests and not those of the far left lobby."
"Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, a...sponsor of the repeal bill, said gay marriage goes against natural law. Gays choose to be gay, he said. "A black person cannot change the color of their skin, but a homosexual can change their sexual preference any time," he added." http://www.boston.com/news/loc...
Even the Union Leader's editorial writer, Drew Cline noted that something was amiss: "Another factor hurting opponents' efforts to undo same-sex marriage: some of the opponents. Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, claimed the state was selling babies to homosexual couples for $10,000 each. Rep. Nancy Elliot, R-Merrimack, accused the Nashua public schools of teaching gay sex to fifth-graders. There are sound reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, but you wouldn't know it from listening to such comments." http://www.unionleader.com/art...
The legislature and the public are not falling for your shenanigans.
As I begin, this diary, the vote on the Judiciary Committee Report on HB1590 is being taken. The Judiciary Committee voted 12-8 that this bill is Inexpedient to Legislate, that is, it should be killed.
Interestingly enough, it is usual for the person writing the blurb, or report for the House Calendar to be the one to speak to that position on the floor. Rep Nancy Elliot(R-Merrimack)was glaringly absent from today's debate. At this point, she's said enough, and it's been broadcast around the world.
