New Hampshire to Focus on Bill to Repeal SSM


Congrats to Rep. Bates for making a difficult decision to unify the fight in NH:

State Rep. David Bates, the Windham Republican who also is sponsor of the repeal bill, told The Associated Press on Tuesday he wants to let the Legislature consider repealing the law enacted under Democrats two years ago before debating a constitutional change -- a process that would take longer to implement.

"The bill to change the meaning of marriage back to what it was in statute is well on its way," Bates said.

Bates said he did not want to risk having lawmakers choosing between two measures: the bill and a constitutional amendment.

"It would complicate the decision for legislators if there was another alternative out there," he said.

... The full House must vote on the bills early next year. If the House passes the repeal bill, it would go to the Senate. It takes a majority to pass bills. -- Associated Press


  1. Christopher
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    So much for letting the people vote. And here, this proposed legislation will provide a type of civil union that even siblings can enter in to.

    Wow, you were right NOM, marriage equality *does* lead to incest.

    g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶l̶u̶c̶k̶ worst of luck passing this piece of garbage.

  2. Davide
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    i agree Christopher this bill is garbage and NOM should pull away from it. They are making a huge mistake in supporting this thing but SS'M' is equally repugnant filth.

  3. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Permalink


    Do you have a job?

  4. Davide
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Christopher, you are full of assumptions today. What makes you think same-sex couples are into 'lifelong commitment to marriage'? Show me two handfuls of committed same-sex relationships and i will show you a zit on a hippo's butt, better yet i will show you bushels that are not so committed. You are talking to a 'gay' man here and i was about as committed to my relationships as a goldfish is comitted to his memory.

  5. Davide
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Chris my relationships were ordinary and we both know it. Those same sex relationships that are long term are extraordinary. Come on dude we even joke about it. GAY YEARS vs dog years. Even homosexual advocacy is rethinking it. Its ok its our secret

  6. John B.
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Since NOM hates such important decisions being made by state legislatures and keeps saying "let the people vote", I fully expect them to criticize this action by the New Hampshire state legislature and demand that it be put to a vote of the people instead. Or does that go out the window, now that we're talking about a state where a strong majority supports same-sex marriage?

  7. John B.
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Davide, I am very sorry for you that you were never able to find fulfillment or commitment in a same-sex relationship but I think that says more about you than it does about same-sex relationships in general.

    I'd certainly like to think that my relationship of 29 (although marriage of less than two) years is extraordinary, but I know many, many other gay couples who are just as committed and have been together for 10 years or more. If you were running with a young, promiscuous crowd, maybe you were choosing the wrong friends, and maybe you were looking for love in the wrong places.

    You sound very bitter. I'm guessing that you're young and still have some growing up to do. I wish you a happy, committed relationship and truly hope you can find one, whether it's with a woman or another man. The right person is hard to find, and some of us are luckier than others.

  8. Louis E.
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    As I have said,an opposite-sex marriage is to a same-sex "marriage" is as being sworn in as a police officer is to taking the oath as a "made man" in the Mob.

    There's nothing praiseworthy about the strength or length of someone's commitment to do something that is WRONG...that only compounds the error.The government owes all persons mired in same-sex sexual relationships constant pressure to break out of those relationships.

  9. John B.
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    So full of judgment and anger! But the same goes for you, Louis: I hope you find happiness, love, and commitment with another person. I think you'll find it makes you a better person.

  10. Davide
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    marry a wowan Chris then you can have the same freedoms.

  11. Louis E.
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 3:10 am | Permalink

    Christopher,I'll never marry in any jurisdiction that allows same-sex marriage,as only by being exclusively opposite-sex can it have any value to me.(I am not religious and a religious ceremony is not an option).Your right to be protected from your homosexuality comes before your desire for protection of it!

  12. Little man
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 4:52 am | Permalink

    Well, well.... so much chatter about statistical populations of people of homosexual persuasion, and no actual data. That's when arguments can go for hours (because of lack of data). Everyone referring to their limited experience, even the older guys. How about moving over to the statistics regarding happiness in a homosexual relationship? How many 'gays' lose their gayness, per capita, when they are beaten by their partners? How 'gay' does it feel to contract AIDS? There are, unfortunately, statistics of police reports regarding domestic violence among homosexual partners. How long do you think such a partnership is going to last, under such treatment? It makes me think they are very much in need of some - s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n - Anyway, since when is life-long commitment necessary for marriage or civil union? The lawyers make a lot more on divorce than the 'Justice of the Peace' make on marriage ceremonies. Wonder how come divorce is so easy?

  13. Sam Jones
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    Even if one could cite cases of homosexuals living long, healthy, monogamous lives and providing well for children, the research shows that such people are the exception rather than the rule, and laws must be based on what usually happens, not exceptions.

    The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for a homosexual it is fifty. The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals. Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples.

  14. Louis E.
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Christopher,an institution that exists to further the public interest in there being opposite-sex relationships does not exist so that best friends can get tax breaks.You are the one who denies that the existence of homosexual orientation makes no difference at all to the exclusively normative nature of opposite-sex sexual relationships in sexually dimorphic species.You think homosexuality entitles you to violate that norm with impunity when nothing entitles anyone to do so.

  15. Louis E.
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Christopher,a relationship being homosexual IS a harm it does to those in it and everyone exposed to it.No public interest is served by a homosexual relationship being treated as if it were of as much worth to society as a heterosexual relationship,while the abandonment of homosexual relationships helps society significantly.

  16. Little man
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    Christopher: You can marry someone of your choosing (with mutual consent, of course). Just go to a church that agrees with your philosophy of life. Oh, you mean Federal? (not sacred marriage, the real thing?) Hey, maybe the Fed. law gets changed just for you guys to really be "glad", i mean, 'gay'. (I don't think so).

  17. Christopher
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Louis if there is harm then you would be able to explain it, but you haven't, and I'm sure you can't do anything other then *insist* that it's harmful without proof or reasoning. You also do nothing to explain your claim that a society is helped by oppressing its gay and lesbian members.

    You do nothing but beg the question, and that's not good enough.

  18. Louis E.
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Christopher,your claim that persons should feel free to engage in sexual activity with each other despite being of the same sex is utterly without foundation.
    I do not see how people can be cured of the delusion of entitlement to engage in such activity without pressure to reconsider the innately indefensible decisions to do so for which they must be held to account.

  19. Christopher
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    You describe things as "innately indefensible" without having offered a shred of reason as to why. You refer to "unconditional obligations" for gay and lesbian people people to be celibate without explaining, at all, where such an obligation comes from or why it's unconditional.

    In other words, you state platitudes and simply insist things as if they are without need of justification or argument. Every position you seem to have taken rests entirely on these unproven and unqualified assumptions. They are, in a word, worthless, and they mean nothing.

  20. Christopher
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    "Christopher,your claim that persons should feel free to engage in sexual activity with each other despite being of the same sex is utterly without foundation."

    It rests on the strongest foundation possible: two consenting adults responding their own wants and desires and who, in doing so, cause no harm to themselves or others. It is the same reason we pursue practically any other goal or activity: pleasure, happiness, personal growth, fulfillment, serving common good, etc.

  21. Louis E.
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    If mere "wants and desires" were "the strongest foundation possible" there would be neither need for nor opportunity for laws obliging anyone to do anything that s/he did not wish.Once again,the mere fact of people being of the same sex renders sexual activity between them so unconscionable that no defense of it is possible!

  22. Christopher
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    No, Louis, I made myself very clear. I did not say wants and desires, alone, are the justification. read it again:

    "...two consenting adults responding their own wants and desires and who, in doing so, CAUSE NO HARM TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS..."

    "Once again,the mere fact of people being of the same sex renders sexual activity between them so unconscionable..."

    Why? Why do you refuse to substantiate *any* of these absolute claims that you make? My partner being my same sex makes nothing unconscionable or indefensible.

  23. Karen Grube
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Let's be clear about this. The voters of New Hampshire want this reprehensible law repealed. This was one reason they voted for a veto-proof majority in their state legislature. The voters DID speak in the only way they were allowed, since the previous legislature prevented them from actually voting on this law, when they never would have passed. David Bates' bill is the quickest and most appropriate way to set things back to the way the voters of New Hampshire wanted and still want.

    Better yet will be when we elect a U.S. House, Senate and President who will promote and pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There are more than enough states ready to pass such an amendment. And two more states will be added to the list in 2012 of those defining marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman: North Carolina and Minnesota.

    Clearly gay "marriage" isn't something the voters of this country want for our nation. The only poll that matters is the one at the ballot box, and when the voters of this coutry are allowed to make this decision for whatever their individual reasons, they ALWAYS say a resounding "NO" to redefining marriage.

    Many vote against same-sex "marriage" because they believe children need both a mother and a father, that their roles are different in a child's life and that both mothers and father are neither irrelevant nor interchangeable.

    Others look at simple biology and know that we were created male and female for a reason and that our public policies should support the simple biological fact that it is still only the union of one man and one woman that can create a child without outside interference.

    Others look at history and see that the only successful socieities over time have been those that hold the traditional family as the heart and center of their culture.

    Others look at the potential, already being promoted, for other kinds of relationships being legitimized, like child marriage or multiple marriage, if same-sex marriage becomes the law, as it has in some states. Look at what just happened in California? Governor Brown just signed a law, written by a gay state legislator, to allow children under 18 with parental consent to enter into gay domestic partnerships!

    Others see the push for same-sex marriage as an attempt to silence religious speech and an attempt to marginalize Christians, which is clearly happening already. Christian social service agencies are having to close because they refuse to violate their faith by allowing adoptions to same-sex "couples."

    And still others vote against same-sex "marriage" because their faith teaches them that marriage between one man and one woman was part of God's ordained plan for the creation of humanity. And that's okay, since there is no law telling people they have to check their faith at the ballot box curtain.

    For whatever their reasons, the voters of this country have and will continue to say NO to same-sex "marriage" whenever they are allowed to at the ballot box. As much as some people think the 2012 election is or should focus on the economy, the voters of this country aren't buying it. We know that our core values are at stake in this next election. It's not ALL about the economy, stupid, to mangle James Carville's infamous line. The voters get it. You think the conservative revolution ended with the election in 2010? It has only just begun.

  24. Louis E.
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Christopher,your denial of a fact does not discredit it.You are harming yourself,and everyone exposed to the fact of your relationship,by your failure to adhere to the necessary norm of all humans only ever engaging in sexual activity with members of the opposite sex.You enable each other's bad instincts,in the manner of providing liquor to an alcoholic;you set a bad example by anyone having trouble suppressing same-sex attraction of his or her own;and you disgust those with mature understanding of the necessity of the norms you defy.

  25. Christopher
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    You need to learn the meaning of the word "fact." Something isn't a fact because you insist that it is. If what I'm doing causes harm to myself or others, then you should be able to explain that harm specifically.

    Until you do, it's nothing but hot air and rhetoric.

  26. Louis E.
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Christopher,your claiming that you are doing no harm isn't a fact because you insist that it is.The manifestly greater importance to humanity of opposite-sex over same-sex relationships renders it vital that all threats to the guarantee of a superior legal status to opposite-sex over same-sex sexual relationships be defeated.

    You refuse to concede that deluding a person into agreeing with your stance on homosexuality is a harm to that person,but it IS a harm to that person.

  27. Christopher
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    The fact that you, after all of this back and fourth, can still not expand on the nature of that harm in specific says it all: you have nothing up your sleeve but rhetoric.

    You are the one that says homosexuality is harmful, so YOU explain why, or else be dismissed.

  28. Louis E.
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    My every explanation is met with your stipulation that you refuse to accept it.Your not agreeing doesn't make me wrong.