This Thursday at 10am, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing two bills (HB 437, HB 443) to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. While strong majorities in both houses favor the repeal of same-sex marriage, prominent House Republicans have publicly argued that the bills should be retained in committee until 2012.
Here’s what I need you to do:
1) Email the members of the House Judiciary Committee urging them to approve the same-sex marriage repeal bills quickly, sending them to the full House for a vote. Gay marriage advocates pushed same-sex marriage through in 2009 during the worst of the economic crisis, with heavy-handed pressure, backroom deals, and multiple votes. It’s time to undo the damage. The time for action is now – not next year! Voters expected better.
Your email will go to each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, with copies also going to your own state representative, House Speaker Bill O’Brien, and House Majority Leader DJ Bettencourt. Click here to send your email now!
2) Attend Thursday’s hearing. Gay marriage supporters will be out in force, and we need to make a strong showing. NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher will be among those testifying at the hearing. There has been a lot of misleading information reported in the press lately – come show up in person and let your representatives see the face of New Hampshire families who care about marriage, and expect them to keep their word.
The hearing will begin at 10am this Thursday morning (2/17) in Representatives Hall at the Statehouse in Concord. (Click here for directions.) Please come early to make sure you get a seat, as it’s expected to be a full house.
This is our moment. We have a chance to make New Hampshire the first state to legislatively repeal a same-sex marriage statute. Please stand with us by taking action today!
10 Comments
And if the New Hampshire GOP succeeds in this effort, what happens to all the Gay couples who have already married? Do they get "grandfathered in," or will their marriages be declared null and void?
It's a hard-hearted group that seeks not only to deny marriage rights to fellow citizens but also wants to strip away existing rights from couples already enjoying the comfort and security marriage brings. It's a sad statement on religion, which one would hope could start to move away from its historic role of creating division among humanity. It's pretty easy to see who's immoral here, and it's not the same sex couple down the block wanting to build a home together with the civil rights protections already enjoyed by the majority.
It is a noble thing when the People rise up and slap down the tyrants who have dared to arrogate to themselves the power to redefine humanity's most ancient institution.
May God be with the people of New Hampshire as they send an unforgettable message against tyranny.
In response to James Turner,
What is really immoral are those who advocate denying each child an upbringing in the healthiest environment, one with a mother and a father. It is hard hearted to believe that any other alternative lifestyle choice can ever be equivalent to the marriage of a man and a woman.
Rob A.
I understand your ignorance and myopic view of the world blinds you to the fact that there are committed same sex couples who can and do provide the loving environment to raise a well adjusted, healthy and happy child. The fact you have not cared to look past your prejudices does not magically remove them from reality.
Also, why do you keep focusing on a extremely small case (even if it were true that somehow, raising a child in a stable family of same sex parents harms the child in any way).... How about those who advocate teach "abstinence only" in our schools - that is immoral and a *much* bigger problem to the welfare of child upbringing...
How about those who don't enter into marriage with the respect for the institution or each other - resulting in broken homes when children are conceived... How about doing something about the social situations where children are born into poverty? These are much more relevant and pressing issues than trying to prevent a committed couple access to the rights, benefits and protections available to any two people of the opposite sex.
Chuck, hopefully those false marriages will be null and void.
2 men and 2 women could not give the balance that a child needs from a mother and a father. Its not in their DNA to do so. Children would miss out on what a father and a mother brings to them.
Now we have George who says that abstinence is harmful. That is truly scary and representative in their population. It is no wonder that children shouldn't be a part of any homosexual's life.
Sean,
Please don't misrepresent what I said.
Abstinence can be and s a wonderful thing.
"Abstinence only" education is harmful.
In areas of this country that teach an "Abstinence Only" sex-education have a statistically higher incidence of teenage pregnancies and STD.
To preach to kids to "wait until marriage" at the expense of teaching them how to avoid both pregnancy and STDs flies in the face of the fact that kids will do what kids do, despite the fact of what their parents tell them to. That is why these types of programs are such a great failure. These programs are part of the problem of the statistic that 40% of births today are given by single mothers.
It is criminally irresponsible to not educate children in safe and effective methods to prevent pregnancy and STDs.
George, it comes down to the same thing, you've just added a caveat to it. You can't teach abstinence and promote condoms, its hypocritical and the kids see right through this. There is no criminal responsibility on behalf of educators pushing abstinence only as it is the teenagers who are making this decision. You seem to overlook one little thing called personal responsibility. Teach the kids good morals and you'll have a better response to this education. Teach them to have protection and you're just encouraging sex.
So you're definition of abstinece education leaves a lot to be desired as you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Great posts from Sean, Rob A. and cathlicdad. Since children cannot vote it is up to us responsible adults to do what we can do to have laws that protect them because they are vulneable. Children need a mom and dad.
As far as the second comment by Turner one again the SSM advocates use phony rights arguments. No one denied you the right to marry in the first place. If you obey the law like everybody else then you have the right to have your marriage recognized. You do not have a right to make up your own definition of marriage without the consent of the people. As far as stripping away rights of those already, they never had a right to make up their own laws in the first place.
To show what an idiotic argument Turner makes is to use an actual example of a case in court. There was a man who claimed he wanted to use the library like everyone else. Only problem was he refused to wear shoes like everybody else. He was not allowed to use the library. He claimed his right to use the library was denied. Once again you do not have a civil right to simply make up your own laws and claim discrimination when you disobey existing law.
Sean,
And you are not taking into consideration that the growing teenage brain has been scientifically proven to have not fully matured to the point of making "fully responsible" decisions. That comes much later in life, like the late teens and early 20s, yet they are fully biological function to create babies.
"Hoping for the best" will lead to the natural foreseeable consequences of pregnancy when one refuses to provide adequate information regarding standard, safe protection from pregnancies. Now, I am not saying that teaching children about condoms will guarantee that if they make the "in the heat of the moment" choice to experiment with intercourse that they will make the responsible choice to do it with protection, but it is extremely more likely to be their choice if they are educated about condoms rather than purposely keep this information from them in the false hope that "abstinence only" will work. It does work for some children, but for those it doesn't work, you would rather that these children be more likely to become pregnant and transmit STDs amongst each other.
One Trackback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NOM and Brian S. Brown, Brian S. Brown. Brian S. Brown said: URGENT ALERT: #Marriage Hearing in #New Hampshire this Thursday. We need your help to stop #SSM! #NO4M #TCOT #NH http://4rd.ca/aaack5 [...]