New Hampshire Joins Iowa in Reinforcing the Freedom to Marry
Written by Norma Love Thursday, 18 February 2010 09:26
Six weeks after New Hampshire legalized gay marriage, the House overwhelmingly defeated two measures Wednesday that would have taken away their right to marry.
The House voted 210-109 to kill a bill to repeal the law. An hour earlier, the House voted 201-135 to kill a proposed constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Gay marriage opponents needed 60 percent of the House to send the proposed amendment to the Senate, which would have had to pass it by the same margin. They knew their chances of success were slim of passing either measure. Several said they will look to the November election in hopes voters will elect people who will repeal the law next session and put an anti-gay marriage amendment on a future ballot.
Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, tried unsuccessfully to delay the vote on the proposed amendment until March 17, which would be after most town meetings. A number of towns will consider a nonbinding resolution calling on lawmakers to put an amendment on the ballot. Bates, who helped organize the grass-roots effort, wanted the proposed amendment to be on this November's ballot.
So far, organizers have had mixed success getting towns to put the proposal before voters.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, predicted last week the proposed amendment would get more votes than the bill to repeal the law -- but both would still fail.
"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," he 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."
Bates argued marriage is one man and one woman and an important institution in society.
"I'd like to see our civilization continue," he said.
Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican and 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.
Gay marriage supporters argued it was wrong and would be cruel to take away gays' right to marry so soon after legalizing the unions.
Rep. Ed Butler, a Democrat from Harts Location, said he and his partner plan to wed this April.
"We have fought to be married not because we want to tear down the institution of marriage, but because we respect and honor it," he said. "Thank you for what will be an incredibly powerful moment in our lives. Please don't take it away."
Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said lawmakers should not be swayed by a small, vocal minority with a political and religious agenda.
"Political blackmail will not prevail over logic, law and equal rights," he said.
Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, thanked the lawmakers for affirming gays' right to marry.
"We know that New Hampshire does not support discrimination or different laws for different types of people," she said.
New Hampshire became the fifth state to legalize gay marriage on Jan. 1, joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. California briefly allowed gay marriage before a popular vote in 2008 banned the practice; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married. Last year, Maine lawmakers approved gay marriage, but voters in a referendum overturned the law before it went into effect.
Read the original article in The Boston Globe
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of us at RainbowZine. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). RainbowZine and/or Rainbow Law will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
