Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

New Hampshire marriage repeal bill introduced

Marriage equality

By Adam Bink

Just today, as reported in the Concord Monitor, repeal language was introduced, which can be found here (and copied below). It’s every bit as nasty as you expected it to be.

The legislation does recognize marriages performed in the state since the freedom to marry became a reality, but any out of state marriage performed after the time at which this law would be enacted is not recognized. E.g., New Hampshire gay and lesbian couples cannot travel to Massachusetts and wed.

Per the article, a response from NH Freedom to Marry:

The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition criticized Bates for focusing on gay marriage instead of the economy. “Rep. Bates has planted himself firmly, and proudly, on the fringes of American life,” Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said in a statement. “His need to divorce committed couples and to prevent other couples from getting married is strange. So much for family values.”

Bill text:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to the definition of marriage.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Marriage; Marriages Prohibited; Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. RSA 457:1 – RSA 457:3 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose. The legislature finds and declares that:

I. Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, marriage has roots that are “older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).

II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of a man and a woman, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New Hampshire has a compelling interest.

III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

IV. A child has a natural human right to the love, care and support of his or her own mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes that ideal and encourages its achievement.

457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Men; Women.

I. No man shall marry his mother, father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s daughter, or any other man.

II. No woman shall marry her father, father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s sister’s son, or any other woman.

457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

2 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage [that is entered into by one male and one female], and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.]

3 Marriage; Solemnization of Marriage. RSA 457:31 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:31 Who May Solemnize. Marriage may be solemnized by a justice of the peace as commissioned in the state; by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state; by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution; by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution; or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law.

4 Solemnization of Marriage; Exceptions. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:37 Exceptions. Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of Jewish Rabbis residing in this state, or of the people called Friends or Quakers, to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid. Jewish Rabbis residing out of the state may obtain a special license as provided by RSA 457:32.

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 100-A:2-b, relative to marriage.

II. RSA 457:31-b, relative to solemnization of marriage; applicability.

III. RSA 457:45, relative to civil union recognition.

IV. RSA 457:46, relative to obtaining legal status of marriage.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

150 Comments

  • 1. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:12 am

  • 2. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:14 am

    UGH!!!

  • 3. David Glasser  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Does this mean that Quakers and Jewish Rabbis would still be able to solemnize legal same-sex weddings? (Is "457" a chapter or "457:37"?) If so, what a loophole in what is otherwise a disgusting attempt at law!

    –dave [Jewish, 14 years of Quaker school]

  • 4. nightshayde  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Sounds like "we will only allow Christians, justices of the peace, and bankruptcy judges to perform marriages… and I guess the Jews can do it, too, if necessary."

    What about people from faith traditions which are not Judeo-Christian in nature?

    What's up with 13-year-old girls & 14-year-old boys being able to get married? That just seems creepy to me (though likely dealing with those "accidental" pregnacies)… and why is there a mention of same-sex partners having to be at least 18 if they're not going to be allowed to get married anyway?

    *bangs head repeatedly on desk*

  • 5. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:21 am

    That's not how I read it. The section providing the exception has to do with WHO may solemnize marriages, not who is marriageable.

  • 6. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:25 am

    "III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally…."

    Now that's real classy language for a state statute.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Some of this is likely because of the need to revise the law as it reads now. I haven't looked at the code in its present form, but it's available here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NH

  • 8. Ed Cortes  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:31 am

    scribin

  • 9. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:32 am

    II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of <del>a man and a woman</del> two consenting adults, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New Hampshire has a compelling interest.

    Many scholars and experts have shown scientific research to demonstrate that the social goods of marriage are not gender-specific, especially now that we are evolved enough as a society as to not require artificial gender roles and stereotypes

    III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. <del>Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.</del>

    Gay people have children, too. There is no "because of this biological reality" that rationally leads to any state interest in marriage discrimination. Even if there were, denying the benefits of marriage to some families does nothing to promote the institution to some mythological ideal. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation is hurtful to society and against state interest. Discrimination against a class of parents is harmful to children.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:32 am

    When I said "the need to revise the law as it reads now.." I was referring to the legislators' needs to revise the existing law if they wanted to implement this hideous result. I didn't mean to suggest that ANYONE needs to repeal marriage equality laws! (just in case there was any confusion. : ) )

  • 11. Dave in ME  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Wow. Just ridiculous.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Gay rights groups criticize AG Suthers' support of federal marriage law
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17245966

    "If it will affect a Colorado constitutional provision, we get involved at that point," spokesman Mike Saccone said. "That's exactly the case here."

    ….

    "If part of DOMA is struck down, Colorado could be forced to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by other states, Saccone said."

    The Massachusetts cases don't challenge Section 2 of DOMA, the section AG Struthers is allegedly concerned about.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:33 am

    I'd vote for this one.

  • 14. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:35 am

    ::snort!::

  • 15. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:35 am

    The Massachusetts cases don’t challenge Section 2 of DOMA, the section AG Struthers is allegedly concerned about.

    Precisely!! This only has to do with the feds recognizing marriages that are valid within the state of residence. What maroons.

  • 16. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:41 am

    I think it is funny the level of detail they go into describing precisely which close blood-relations you aren't allowed to marry.

    "Sister" is a little unclear. Could Mike Brady's boys marry Carol Tyler's daughters? Would it only be okay if they were all at least 14 (13 for Cindy) and married before Mike and Carol got hitched? Nothing in the rules they outlined prohibits marrying your brother's wife's sister, or your son's mother-in-law.

  • 17. Larry Little  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:49 am

    how fucking sad the people's taxes are used to legislate this hatred by people elected to public office to represent ALL the citizenry, not just the churches persistent insistence the gay population be trampled under the foot of God or so says their good book that brings so much bad from the interpreter. Just how can representatives make morality statements in office when they ran for office swearing to reduce government spending and create jobs and not making Tea Party culture wars a priority. We need men of science in public offices, not religious maggotry.

  • 18. Ann S.  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Wait, wha happen? I thought that NOM was all in an uproar because a repeal bill was NOT going to be introduced, last I heard.

  • 19. Chris B  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:10 am

    I think that was in the old NH marriage laws too. Too bad we can't spin this as: "NH to legalize adult/child marriages".

  • 20. Ray in MA  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Is this the bill that will be brought up in 2012?

  • 21. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:11 am

  • 22. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:15 am

    I think word was that they wouldn't be voting on legislation this year.

  • 23. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:35 am

    The House leader has asked the chairman of the judiciary committee to 'retain' the bill in committee, because if it comes to the floor it must be voted on.

  • 24. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:43 am

    I think the enumeration of who cannot marry (except for the same gender part) is how the current NH reads.

    Note that it doesn't specify blood relationships: adopted persons are evidently considered the same as those genetically related.

  • 25. Chrys  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Sooo – a thirteen year old girl and a fourteen year old boy can get married. But two women (or two men) in their forties who have been a couple for eighteen years can't.

    Now I understand completely!

    Idiots.

  • 26. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:46 am

    And if it becomes law, our NH taxes will probably be used to defend that law when it is taken to court for being unconstitutional.

  • 27. Mackenzie  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:46 am

    wait….I thought the republican dude said this would not be a priority for this year….so cunfused

  • 28. Justin  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Disgusting.

  • 29. Paul in Minneapolis  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Did NOM write this bill?

    And are they really replacing same-sex marriage with child marriage?

  • 30. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Also a 13-year-old girl can marry a 60-year old man, and that is approved, but not the marriage of two men in their 60s who have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for 40 years. It's all about family values! /sarcasm

  • 31. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:51 am

    The child marriage part has been there throughout a long history. They aren't changing that.

  • 32. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:57 am

    I looked at the current statute. The text between the brackets in the section "Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows: 457:4" is in the current statute and it is being amended to remove that text.

  • 33. nightshayde  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Sue did it on Glee. =)

    (or did she not go through with it?)

  • 34. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:55 am

    And I also noticed that this POS will become effective immediately upon its passage and signing into law, but when laws are passed for marriage equality, there is always a delay in place before the effective date. Equality is delayed, but discrimination is instantaneous?

  • 35. Tomato  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    This whole deal of marriages in the state or out of the state during the time they were legal are still legal, but outside of that window they are not legal sounds so much like California.

    And the whole thing about how marriage exists so straight people will marry before they have sex in case they get pregnant is just as stupid in the NH law piece as it was at the Prop 8 appeals hearing in December.

  • 36. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    And, once again…. evil, short-sighted, bigoted f**ks.

  • 37. Rhie  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    *Headdesk* *Headdesk*…

  • 38. Rhie  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Why not? That IS *technically* true…which is several steps higher than the opposition's spin.

  • 39. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    That's Barbara Bush the younger :).

    Barbara Bush Endorses Marriage Equality
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/barbara-

  • 40. Chrys  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Well, but that 60 year old man and that 13 year old girl could have babies together! That's what it's all about, after all!

    Grrrrrrrr.

  • 41. Colin  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    yeah, I agree…this ("accidental conception") seems to be the new angle at finding a rational basis for denying ss marriage— since all others fail miserably.
    But really, how rational is this?
    My biggest gripe is that the entire anti-equality platform is defending itself against an argument that nobody has made – namely, "that recognizing ss marriage is somehow the same thing as discouraging traditional marriage." But they never put that into those words….the few times I have seen somebody get them to, they are visibly uncomfortable doing it. I think its because they know how absurd it is.

  • 42. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    The part about 13-year-old girls being able to marry is about people marrying before a child is born

    That's where virgin births came from, too.

    But what YOU said, yeah, in the puritanical soicieties of old, it was about saving the "virtue" of the (child) woman. To bad marriage also sold her into a life of slavery to her "husband".

  • 43. SoCal Dave  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    This is proposed legislation about marriage that starts with the words "Marriage is not a creature of statute"? :-S

  • 44. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    WOW they also go on to say, "But sympathy and fairness cannot blind us to the importance of the basic sexual facts that give rise to marriage in virtually every known society: The vast majority of human children are created through acts of passion between men and women."
    Does THAT sound familiar?
    I thought these lawmakers were LAWYERS and such, not plagiarists.

  • 45. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    So, do these 13 and 14 year olds need parental consent to marry, didn't state such. If these organizations were so concerned about the children, they would be working on increasing the legal age for marriage and supporting sex education in the schools.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 46. Michelle Evans  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    OT for this thread, but I would like to pass along some very disturbing news. A couple of evenings ago, on Saturday Night Live, NBC chose to air segment of this show as a truly horrible joke against transgender people. You can see the segment at the GLAAD website below.
    http://www.glaad.org/tellsnl

    This was truly an offensive piece of "humor" by the cast of SNL, and I hope that many of my friends here might sign the petition to ask NBC for an apology to all transgender people.

  • 47. Joe  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    "In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven"

    Am I the only one who sees this as an odd thing to be on a bill? Seperation of Church and State, hello? Might as well start quoting the bible throughout the body.

  • 48. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Yeah, SoCal Dave, the irony had not escaped me. :)

  • 49. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    I consider "our side" to be very pro marriage.

  • 50. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Yes, this is the current law, which I believe they are leaving as is:

    "I 457:6 Petition by Party Under Age. – If special cause exists rendering desirable the marriage of a person resident in this state, or the marriage of a person who is a nonresident in this state who applies for permission to marry a resident in this state, either person being below the age of consent and above the ages specified in RSA 457:4, the parties desiring to contract such marriage, with the parent or guardian having the custody of such party below such age, if there be such parent or guardian, may apply in writing to a justice of the superior court, or to the judge of probate of the county in which one of them resides, for permission to contract such marriage. No waiver shall be granted to persons below the age of consent if both parties are nonresidents."

  • 51. Michael  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Anyone who believed radical conserative disinformation a few weeks ago about not working to ban same-sex marriage this year in NH is terribly naive. Shrill anti-gay activists at NOM are going to demand and get something for the $$$ they poured into NH to promote the immoral anti-gay agenda.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    I don't know if this is standard for NH or not, but many legislatures have retained this rather archaic way of denoting the year. BTW, in the U.S. Constitution, this reference to "Year of our Lord" wrt the date is the only mention of god in the document.

  • 53. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    OK, I meant in the NOM genre.

  • 54. Michelle Evans  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Thank you Kathleen. I didn't see the SNL segment until today and it really depressed me that they would create something like this. Shows how little progress we've really made in this area.

    We always talk of how our fight for equality is coming close to fruition, but after this sort of thing, it highlights to me how that may be true of lesbians and gays, but I feel acceptance of trans people is a long, long way from reality. Can you imagine if SNL had done something along these same lines that made fun of gays? The uproar would be overwhelming, and I'm sure they would never even consider doing it in the first place.

  • 55. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    I think it's very important to not let NOM define these terms. They try very hard to co-op the language. We can't let them.

  • 56. Michelle Evans  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    As a follow-up to this, last week when I took Cherie to Disneyland and California Adventure for her birthday celebration, we happened to be outside the Pirates of the Caribbean when they had a group of strolling musicians doing a set.

    Part of the routine was to get audience members to sing along to the Pirates theme song. The woman in the group started by saying, All the women join in," then "All the men join in." Then she said, "And now all the men who like to dress as women join in." One of the pirates sang out loudly, and of course he got all sorts of nasty looks from his fellow musicians, and huge laughs from the crowd. Cherie and I just turned and walked away in disgust.

  • 57. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    I not only found it strange, I also found it offensive. But then I found most of this legislation offensive.

  • 58. Straight for Equalit  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Oops, that went in the wrong place. It was a reply to Joe regarding “In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven”.

  • 59. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    It's really a shame that people can't accept the gender transformation. I am not sure I am using the correct terminology, so if I make a mistake, please forgive me.

    I had a great friend in the Army. 25 years after we went separate ways, I looked for him, among others, to try to get a reunion together. In my search, I found my friend, but he was now a she. I immediately accepted her back into my life and we have spent a lot of time together in recent years. She is still the same friend I knew & loved in the army.
    She decided to be brave and attend the reunion. Several of us, her were her good friends back in Germany had a great time that night. Too bad others only saw her as a side show. The following reunion I had to hear all the slurs and bad mouthing about her. It hurt me, because I knew her to be a great person.

    I have another friend, in Connecticut, whose father, at age 70, decided it was time for him to quit living a lie and become a woman. I can feel bad for anyone trapped in the wrong body. Too bad my friend lost all respect for his dad. Some of the things he calls her now make me wanna puke.

  • 60. Ally  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    This bill reads like it was written by a 5th grader with a thesaurus. The fact that it was plagiarized makes it even more pathetic.

  • 61. Michelle Evans  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Peter, Thank you for being a good person, and especially for your friend in the Army. It is so sad that your other friend turned against their own father when he had to transition.

    So many people talk about how we are somehow gender confused or something. I tell them that I am not confused at all. I know I am female, and always have been. The problem was all the years I tried to hide that simple fact from the world and myself. I missed so much in life because of that. On the other hand, I did find Cherie, and I would never trade that for anything.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    I don't think it was plagiarized. The right wing lawmakers likely went to one or more of these conservative groups to help them write the bill.

  • 63. Mandi  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Let me see if I get this…
    Christians, Quakers, and Jews can be married by their religious leader. Anyone who happens to be Muslim or Hindu or Pagan is just SOL and must have a justice of the peace or a judge marry them? Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for a first amendment lawsuit to pop up?
    And what the hell is up with letting a 13 year old CHILD get married. I don't give a f*ck if she does get pregnant; NO 13 year old is ready to be a wife and mother and take care of a household! It's a sick, twisted loophole that allows childmolesters to countinue assualting their victims without any risk of punishment. If they feel the need to rewrite this law, the LEAST the can do is close the loophole.
    Sorry to rant; emotional baggage and all.
    <3 Mandi )0(

  • 64. Mandi  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    OT: @Richard,
    I wasn't ignoring you the other day. Yahoo's being a pain in my rear and just now let me back into my email on my phone. (3 more weeks before I get my computer back! Can't wait) I'm doing alright, thanks for asking.

  • 65. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Oh gee, how nice it is that they exempted rabbis from their legislation (and the Jewish ones at that!). This is so totally not a religious issue, y'all.

    Very much reminds me of the Middle Ages, when the Christians handed monetary duties off to the Jews, because we were already exempt from getting into their heaven, so what should we care from dealing with sinful finance?

  • 66. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Either that, or the law is written by people whose parents never explained the birds and the bees to them. Far as I can tell from the wording, Humphrey Bogart knocked up Lauren Bacall when he slapped her across the face.

  • 67. Felyx&Kevyn  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    It has to be quick Richard… discrimination has a relatively short shelf life!

    Brothers in Equality!

  • 68. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    As a foreigner, I've noticed that, too… I notice many things that baffle me to no end in the US…

    Like constant mentions of Judeo-Christian God and
    Judeo-Christian rituals in legislative documents and procedures — for example, praying before the beginning of session, or this "Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven"…

    Also, the fact that in courts witnesses and experts should swear on the Bible that they will say "the truth and nothing but the truth"… Not to mention "In God We Trust" on all the dollar bills and coins.

    I find it highly offensive and highly hypocritical (for a country that proclaims freedom of religion and separation of church and state) to see all these religious symbols in the secular settings that are supposed to serve every lawful resident of the US, no matter what creed or color you are, Christian / Muslim / Hindu / Buddhist / Agnostic / Atheist…

    Everyone should be respected, everyone's religion must be respected, and the only way to do that in a secular setting is to remove those symbols / rituals / traditions from those settings leaving them only for private homes and places of worship.

    One too many things I do not understand about the Unites States of America… one too many!..

    — ♂K♥F

  • 69. Tweets that mention New H&hellip  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James S. and Kathleen Perrin, Mark Vaughan. Mark Vaughan said: New Hampshire marriage repeal bill introduced: http://t.co/zyJqMSB […]

  • 70. Straight for Equality  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    That should say “how the current NH law reads”.

  • 71. Paul in Minneapolis  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Oh, I see.

    This is not a constitutional amendment, correct? Not that that makes it any less offensive….

  • 72. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    ♂♂

  • 73. Jon  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Way I read this, it’d be perfectly legal for a man to marry himself, or a woman herself.

    Which is merely by way of mentioning yet another way this is simply ludicrous.

  • 74. nightshayde  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    What about kids who are conceived during acts between people who have been married for a while, and for whom “passion” isn’t really part of the equation any more?

    Hmmm?

  • 75. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    I think “acts of passion” is a euphemism, cause, you know, they wanted to keep it classy.

  • 76. Michelle Evans  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Kirille, Good to hear from our friend in Russia.

    A lot of the examples you cite were incorporated during the 1950s. That was during the time when everyone was in supposed fear of communists taking over the country, so it was decided to add "god" into just about everything, including our Pledge to the flag, coins and bills, that sort of thing.

    It then wasn't until the 1980s when things really started rolling for the religious right, which has now culminated in the horrid state of affairs in this country with the Tea Baggers and such that want to roll the clocks back 6,000 years to their supposed biblical creation of the heavens and the earth and everyone on it.

    I always found it rather funny, but also scary, that people are often taught that things like dinosaur bones were placed into the earth to be found and used as a test of man's faith to god.

    As a trans person, I have actually even been told by people who used to be my friends, that I am a test from god to them. In other words, god supposedly placed me on this planet so that god could test THEM and see if they did the "right thing" by rejecting me. The definition of insanity, by my book.

  • 77. Felyx  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    I am following this thread and thought I would ineptly chime in…

    I wonder what would have happened if you or both of you had chimed in? I wonder if the other actors would have been less likely to give the dirty looks since you were there singing as audience members?

    It is hard sometimes to speak up… and I would never encourage anyone to put themselves in harms way. I do believe that becoming visible is essential to the cause. I have spoken up on occasion and have had mixed results myself. It is a shame that we could not all have been there at that moment… we would all have broken into song!!!

    Regarding the video clip… I watched what you posted. Without any commentary by a member of the community, I would have looked favorably on the humor as it brings this issue to light through not-heinously obnoxiously offensive humor. (The guard was positive at seeing such an individual and all the trans-characters were happy and unashamed at who they were.) I know many straight men who became more comfortable with male homosexuality through bawdy comedy and 'Jerry Springer' type shows. But I am not trans myself. Because of your comment, I will stand with you regarding your petition… none of us need feel ashamed or maligned for who we are.

    With love,
    Felyx

  • 78. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    I don’t get it. I thought New Hampshire passed a same sex marraige law. It was not forced upon them by the courts. I know NOM and the others hate it when the court mandates SSM. But here, freely elected officials did the right thing all on their own and passed the law. And NOW (with a new batch of elected officials) they think they can just go & change the law?
    There aught to be a law, that any law passed by legislature can’t be undone by legislature for 10 years. (hopefully, no one will care after that long.)

  • 79. Felyx  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Just a quick word on the 13/14 yo part… the partner has to be under 18… probably under 16 in order to qualify.

    I am not gung-ho for this law at all but it is important not to sound life religious right wing fanatics making up stuff that isn't researched or well thought out…. just saying.

    Felyx

  • 80. Straight for Equality  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Actually I am not sure. The speak of a statute. I took a quick look at the NH Constitution and it doesn’t appear to deal with such things. Too bad. It takes a 2/3 vote of the people to change the Constitution. It looks like we might not get a say on this.

    I wonder if the cries of “Let the people vote” might come from the other side in the future. 😉

  • 81. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    What the hell is it with this “marriage is for heterosexuals because they can conceive accidentally” nonsense? NOM or some such thought it up, didn’t they?

  • 82. Straight for Equality  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    The part about 13-year-old girls being able to marry is about people marrying before a child is born, not before they have sex. Because heterosexual sex can cause pregnancy, rash, unloving opposite-sex couples can marry. It’s those family values again!

  • 83. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    That comes from the group called Institute for American Values and Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

    “Marriage in any important sense is not a creation of the State, not a mere creature of statute.”

    Go to this site for the whole text:

    http://www.americanvalues.org/html/mlawstmnt2.html

    They go on to say:

    ” Family law as a discipline has increasingly tended to commit two serious errors with regard to marriage: (a) to reduce marriage to a creature of statute, a set of legal benefits created by the law, and (b) to imagine marriage as just one of many equally valid lifestyles.”

  • 84. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    (sighs) …… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 85. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    In an attempt to be PRO marriage, Rev. Amy Ziettlow writes something that should stand for our side as well.

    Each couple realizes through their own path (some counseling, some time, some dinners, some conversations, some times of silence, some time together, some time apart) that the questions of identity and partnership are not mutually exclusive and may only be answered in relationship.

    Many married couples, myself included, find that I am able to be and accomplish far more as a couple than I ever could alone. The death of a spouse is often compared to the loss of a limb. There are countless tasks and relationships and thoughts that I think are mine but are really my spouses.

    One couple shares,

    “A lot of people have the misconception that marriage is the culmination of a relationship…Far from it. Marriage is a constant process of finding the best possible way to connect with another person.”

    And I would argue, ironically, the best way to connect with yourself.

  • 86. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Michelle, I signed this yesterday. I found it very offensive.

  • 87. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    The first time I remember hearing reference to this law was in reference to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The NH marriage age is given as an example of marriages which are permitted in one state and recognized in every other state.

  • 88. JoeRH  |  January 31, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    These people need a new song. This "procreation" and "social stability" BS is getting tired and just sounds more and more ridiculous. What's worse, though, is that a great deal of our fellow Americans actually think that's a valid argument. We are so far behind in terms of social growth.

  • 89. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    I don't enjoy sarcasm much and I seem to be very poor and telling or "getting" jokes in general. I have trouble comprehending what is funny about belittling others ESPECIALLY when you never know who might be listening. I recall as a child hearing "black" jokes and "Pollock" jokes…unconscionable now. I hope cross-dressing/transgender/gay jokes will soon become a thing of the past too.

    I do not find the pirate joke funny either : ( Sorry if it marred your celebrating Cherie's b-day. You mentioned wanting to see the "World of Color" show, did you get a chance to enjoy that part at least? Me and my hubby and son were @ Disney last summer but didn't take purchase the California side as there was much construction on that part going on…but I was curious about how the "World of Color" show was…

    ((HUGS)) to you and Cherie!

    I do not find the pirate joke funny either : ( Sorry if it marred your celebrating Cherie's b-day. You mentioned wanting to see the "World of Color" show, did you get a chance to enjoy that part at least? Me and my hubby and son were @ Disney last summer but didn't take purchase the California side as there was much construction on that part going on…but I was curious about how the "World of Color" show was…

    ((HUGS)) to you and Cherie!

  • 90. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Michelle. I honestly did not know about it until you mentioned it, because. like Betty White, I am not normally up that late on a Saturday night. When I saw the video, I almost puked. That was supposed to be comedy? How? It was thoroughly vile and disgusting.

  • 91. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    oops..double post : /
    – signed petition
    – woot to Peter P : )
    – I would have LOVED to chime in and sing in support as Felyx suggested
    – but the "joke" is still bad because its makes it seem like transgender persons are 'cross-dressers' instead of female or male identity?!?! Drop the not-funny-joke already Disney!
    – For whatever my charismatic hubby always draws attention…couple of years ago the Genie in the Aladdin show would not leave him alone…throwing several "jokes" his way. It made us quite uncomfortable.

  • 92. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Glad to hear it. As for Yahoo, it is nice to know that I am not the only one who is having problems with them. I am at the point of finding a phone number and calling them. After all, it is very hard to ignore a gay Jewish man, whose husband is a rabbi, that is very pissed off over poor customer service. Especially because I can get rather loud.

  • 93. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    !!!!

  • 94. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    MIchelle, I KNOW you were placed here by G-d as I understand her. You are one of those placed here to see who among us is wise enough to spot the angels in our midst. Guess that means Cherie is one of the wise. Hope all is going fine with you guys. I just wish I lived closer so we could meet in person.

  • 95. Catherine  |  February 1, 2011 at 12:32 am

    They use that rationale because it worked in a New York case and one or two others, I think. Since they know their other arguments hold no water legally, they use that bullshit, tortured "logic" that has been spouted by some courts to back their cause. But, the more we shine the light on these ridiculous decisions, etc., the better. Most people have no clue that there have been decisions like this and when you tell them – they are amazed at the stupidity of the reasoning. Not NOM types, but average people who don't give a lot of thought to LGBT issues. Marriage equality protects the largest number of children – if children is the sole reason for marriage – which of course is a crock of shit.

  • 96. Juli  |  February 1, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Yes, it's the backhanded compliment approach: heterosexuals are sloppy and irresponsible so they NEED marriage. Gays are above that, and when we procreate we know exactly what we are getting into, so assuredly our relationships are already plenty secure. Whatever. It's something like when they said women were so much more moral and pure than men, therefore men needed the vote all to themselves to placate themselves over their inferiority. Hogwash.

  • 97. Nicole  |  February 1, 2011 at 1:11 am

    I already read an article on this elsewhere. I remember responding to a comment made by a gay man who thought the whole transgender thing was 'absurd'. He's one of too many who thought the skit was perfectly justified.

    Now, I'm only 22, but even I remember a time when stereotypical gay and lesbian jokes like this were none too uncommon in the media. Now we have material like "The Kids are Alright" and "Glee" in the mainstream. It disturbs me how quickly many gays I've heard just forget how the media portrayed LGBT people in the past.

    The transgender community is invisible by its very nature. The only transgender people the public eye sees are those who don't pass. The ones that do pass [and there are a LOT of them] keep their transition a secret [stealth], so our community seems smaller than it really is. We're easy targets for ridicule.

  • 98. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 1, 2011 at 1:22 am

    seems time for us to contact Disney!

  • 99. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2011 at 1:39 am

    VANDALS LITERALLY TEAR 'EQUALITY' FROM PRO-GAY CHURCH BANNER http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/vandals-literall

    What was that Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, etc etc etc….were saying about "religious liberty"?

    I mean besides the fact that NOM & the rest of their anti-gay/Equality/American/freedom ilk violate the religious liberty of churches like The United Methodist Church….but now anti-marriage equality people who are most likely followers of NOM or in the very least have the same "protect" marriage mindset are now vandalizing one of these Pro-Marriage Equality CHURCHES……

    "The Hollywood United Methodist Church in California supports marriage equality, and has a banner outside the church that reads, 'All are precious in God's sight. This church supports marriage equality.'…"

    (me) Hey NOM, what about their religious liberty?

    "Sometime over the weekend, vandals tore out the "equality" portion so the banner would read 'This church supports marriage.'……."

    (me) Well this church does support marriage….regardless, that was most likely not the motive of the neanderthal who vandalized this banner….

    "Our belief that hate is not a Christian value remains firm, ……And while they can take the 'equality' out of the banner, they can't take it out of our understanding of the Gospel." ~ Rev. Kathy Cooper-Ledesma

    (me) Again, NOM, what about the religious liberty of Rev. Cooper-Ledesma?…..hmmmmmmmm……the article goes on to say this is the 2ND time a banner outside this church was vandalized this month, the 1st one having been "stabbed multiple times"…there are some disturbing people out there "protecting" marriage (as NOM, FRC, etc etc like to call it)…..just saying…… : I …..Ronnie

  • 100. Steve  |  February 1, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Gotta uphold those biblical values

  • 101. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Really? I thought most children were delivered by the stork and found under cabbage leaves.

    So, he is saying, in this legislation, that most children are conceived by sex? Can anyone confirm that this is true??? (big eye roll!)

    Idiot. We all know that MOSTchildren are conceived by sex. Why does this need to be codified into law???

  • 102. Mandi  |  February 1, 2011 at 2:45 am

    @Felyx
    sorry I don't have a reply button. We have the 'romeo and juliet' law in MI as well. I'm not saying they should get rid of that as it protects other CHILDREN from going to prison. My cousin married a little girl because he got her pregnant. She was 13 when she got pregnant; 14 when she married, my cousin was 21, There is no excuse for a 20 year old man to be having sex with a 13 year old little girl. If she hadn't have been pregnant and the authorities had found out, he'd be sitting in prison. He should be in prison. I have nothing to do with this particular cousin anymore. I have 4 little girls and don't allow them to socialize with childmolesters, it'll only be a few years before my oldest is a teenager.
    <3 Mandi )0(

  • 103. Straight for Equalit  |  February 1, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Another illustration that these people aren't pro-marriage, they are just anti-equality. I guess they are offended by that word "Equality".

  • 104. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 1, 2011 at 2:50 am

    I had a discussion with a friend last night about politics, the middle east, egypt…

    A dream (nightmare, really) ensued in which the US became very much like the middle east – marred by terrorism, territorial fights among sects (baptists were going on witch hunts to find other christians who actually *danced*), Texas seceded (didn't particularly object to that because my family managed to seek refuge beforehand), and so on…

    One good outcome, the NRA actually had to admit that lobbying for ZERO gun control (i.e. automatic weapons, assault rifles) had resulted in "pre-arming" mini, sect-based "militias" all over the country, and maybe that wasn't such a great idea.

    I woke up just before me and my family were able to board a plane (that was being hijacked to seek asylum in Europe) because of the ruckus that ensued when a passenger (seventh day adventist) pulled a gun on another passenger who was bringing a hamburger on board to eat later…

    Please, I need your prayers today… I feel all dis-cum-bob-u-lated! (I know the spelling ain't right)

    Just breath and keep chanting my mantra…

    I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT, I AM pleasant GOD DAMMIT…

  • 105. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 2:52 am

    WAIT! I was always told I was picked off a little pink cloud because I was SPECIAL!

    What gives ? ! ?

  • 106. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:02 am

    "Family law as a discipline has increasingly tended to commit two serious errors with regard to marriage: (a) to reduce marriage to a creature of statute…”

    John Merrick: I…am not…an animal!

  • 107. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:02 am

    SPOILERS! I haven't gotten to that season yet! It is in my Netflix queue.

  • 108. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:06 am

    "“But sympathy and fairness cannot blind us to the importance of the basic sexual facts that give rise to marriage in virtually every known society: The vast majority of human children are created through acts of passion between men and women.”

    I see. So "sympathy and fairness" are the first thing to get tossed out the window.

    Who could ever be proud of thinking, let alone drafting, THAT statement? Is that something you teach your kids while they're sitting on your knee before a roaring New Hamphire hearth?

    I'm so ashamed to have ancestral roots in that state!

  • 109. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:24 am

    I picture Brian and Maggie out there in the middle of the night, with their x-acto knives. I'm sure anonygrl could write the scene for us. BTW, for those not in the L.A. area, this is an iconic church on Franklin Ave near the corner of Highland (where Franklin makes a 'jog'), about 1/2 mi. from the Hollywood Bowl.

  • 110. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:24 am

    ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ: "Also, the fact that in courts witnesses and experts should swear on the Bible that they will say “the truth and nothing but the truth”… Not to mention 'In God We Trust' on all the dollar bills and coins." / MICHELLE: "A lot of the examples you cite were incorporated during the 1950s. That was during the time when everyone was in supposed fear of communists taking over the country, so it was decided to add “god” into just about everything, including our Pledge to the flag, coins and bills, that sort of thing."

    For those of us with a sometimes shaky grasp on history (and correct me if I'm wrong), communism specifically does not recognize a spiritual "higher power". That's why its members were often denounced as "those Godless Communists" in the U.S.

    It also explains why the Catholic Church (to use the most obvious example) was sometimes supportive of the nazi and fascist regimes in WWII. The other side to support was Russia, and the Church didn't want an atheist power further spreading across the globe.

    There are pictures of Catholic clergy shaking Hitler's hand, blessing troops, etc. and today we think "What the h%ll was going on with THAT?" What was going on was they wanted to stamp out the "Godless Communists."

  • 111. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:27 am

    There is a transgendered woman here at the office where I work. We are casual acquaintences, we chat in the elevator and on line at the cafeteria…

    Today I saw her in the hall and stopped to ask her if she was interested in marriage equality, and to point her towards the Feb. 8th lobbying day that Marriage Equality NY is sponsoring. It was a little odd, because my first thought was "she is transgendered, this is an issue which affects her" but my second, and much more to the point and clearer thought was "she is just another person, and this might NOT be an area of interest…" because, of course, no one should make that first assumption about anyone simply because we KNOW they are a member of the LGBT community.

    So I said "So… are you interested in marriage equality? Just wanted to let you know about the upcoming event if you are, and you can go look up MENY on line. I am taking the day off to participate." Turns out she is interested, and we had a nice chat about it, which then turned into a chat about Gov. Cuomo, and state layoffs…

    Honestly, I think she may even have appreciated the fact that I did NOT assume she would be on board, but was merely letting her know about it, in case she was interested.

    I am not trying to toot my own horn. Really, I am a little bit confessing that I am not completely in the right here, in that the whole situation gave me pause, and the right answer wasn't automatic, as I wish it were. But I want to say that even if people have that reaction of making an assumption, they can STILL do the right thing by taking a half second to reconsider that assumption before acting on it.

    Some day, the situation will not be an issue at all, and we (or our children, perhaps) will treat everyone as "just people". Michelle, I am truly sorry that there are people who don't take that breath to reconsider, and I apologize to you if sometimes even those of us who know better screw it up. I only hope you know that there are a good number of us who are trying to do better, and I hope that helps some.

  • 112. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:29 am

    It has a huge red ribbon on the steeple, too, correct?

    It's a beautiful, old, landmark church.

  • 113. Peterplumber  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Does anyone find it ironic that the lawyer representing NARTH in their Amicus Brief for the DOMA case is nameed Kreep??

    NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Movant National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality in 10-2204 filed by Attorney Gary G. Kreep

  • 114. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:31 am

    Sound horrible! Hope your day brings more peace than did your night.

  • 115. JonT  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:35 am

    Double UGH!

  • 116. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:36 am

    Yes, that's the one.

  • 117. Straight for Equalit  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:39 am

    The existing law doesn't have all this political BS in it. That doesn't belong in our statutes. The law now says regarding its purpose:

    457:1 Purpose and Intent. – The purpose of this chapter is to affirm the right of 2 individuals desiring to marry and who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of this chapter to have their marriage solemnized in a religious or civil ceremony in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

    457:1-a Equal Access to Marriage. – Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated "bride,'' "groom,'' or "spouse.''

    They seem to feel they have to embed their propaganda into the legislation.

  • 118. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:43 am

    Does anyone have access to a copy of the language of this section of NH statute that pre-dates the inclusion of marriage equality in 2009?

  • 119. Michelle Evans  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:47 am

    Felyx, The type of humor shown on the SNL skit was definitely nothing that would shed any positive light on trans people or issues.

    All of the characters in the skit were offensive stereotypes, especially the fact that nearly all them were sporting beards and mustaches. Not one of them was an honest attempt at passing female, but to grossly over exaggerate maleness while being on estrogen. The last thing any trans female would do is have facial hair.

    It was truly disgusting in the same way a skit about a gay man would be if it included stereotypes like a lisp, or effeminate hand gestures, things of that nature.

  • 120. Felyx  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:52 am

    Sounds like some seriously mess-up parents to me. What kind of parents consent to a thing like that? If my preteen daughter got pregnant by such a guy I am sure I would not be advocating marriage as a solution… but then again, I don't think like NOM.

    In any event… the law does not usually work like that. Remember, consenting guardian adults have to go before a judge and convince the court that this is what they want to do. Furthermore, the judge has to show (for the record) that the marriageable partners are both in agreement with the proposed marriage. Sounds like the girl was in love and the guy was at least dedicated enough to convince everyone that he was sincere and capable of being a husband and a father. I am sure there was more than one person involved 'jonesing' for a rape conviction but… whatever. (Remember, not to long ago in human history any physically mature girl was considered old enough to marry any physically mature man. I sure as hell am not advocating that any of that was well thought out but I can't get bent out of shape considering the persons involved in your cousins 'affair' all chose to see this thing legalized.)

    Regardless of whatever anyone thinks… marriage means different things to different people. I can state with absolute confidence that same-sex inclusion in the 'institution' of marriage is without a doubt inevitable!! When we obtain our rights to marry we will surely RAISE the bar on what it means to be married!!!

    Love,
    Felyx

  • 121. Peterplumber  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:52 am

    Didn't mean to go off topic there. OK, I meant it, but I coulda placed that somewhere else.
    But getting back ON topic, there was a "crime" like this committed in Washington during the Ref 71 campaign.

    A couple who were FOR repealing the bill that was called the "everything but marriage" bill had a sign on their front lawn, promoting their views. Someone defaced the sign, and the Proponents of Ref 71 used THAT incident to persuade the court system to withhold the release of the signers of the petition which got R-71 onto the ballot in the first place.
    That case has been to the supreme court & back again, The proponents lost their case and the SoS is allowed to release the signatures but to date, the signatures have not been released.

  • 122. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:53 am

    Well, ok… it is time for another episode of "Theatre of the Ridiculous On Demand" featuring the antics of our favorite (?) trio of the absurd, Brian, Maggie and Louis.

    Scene: Night, a dark alley, around the corner from a beautiful church. We can see the church in the background and it sports a banner that flutters in a gentle breeze which reads 'All are precious in God’s sight. This church supports marriage equality.’

    Maggie, Brian and Louis huddle in the alley wearing black clothes and with ski masks ready to be pulled down over their faces. Maggie carries a large pair of scissors, Brian has some rusty hedge clippers. The two look to Louis, who looks distraught, then fumbles around in his pocket, and finally extracts a small pair of nail clippers. Maggie turns and bangs her head softly, but repeatedly against the wall. Brian stops her and they sneak out and head for the church.

    Louis: We could just take the whole thing, don't you think?

    Maggie: NO! This is a church! They should support MARRIAGE, the way God defines it.

    Brian: Exactly. Just like MY marriage. Where my wife is subservient to me and stays home with the kids.

    Maggie: Uh… no…

    Louis: Right. All your kids. Because she is there to be your helpmeet and a mother to your offspring.

    Maggie: Err… boys…

    Brian: Indeed she is. She knows that when she took the Brown name, as a good wife should do, she was stepping into that very important job.

    Maggie: I say… fellas…

    Louis: She is a good Christian woman, married, as she should be, to a good Christian man. (He pats Brian on the back)

    Maggie: Now just a second…

    Brian: Thanks, Louis. Someday you will find a woman who will be just as good to you, as all good Christian women are.

    Maggie: Hang on…

    Brian: (turning to Maggie and waving his hedge clippers) OK! Let's get clipping!

    Brian and Louis pull their ski masks down and head across to where the banner hangs. Maggie is left standing in the middle of the street, with a sort of half confused look, trying to formulate an answer, but not coming up with one. She waves her scissors half-heartedly at the boys as the scene fades to black.

  • 123. Michelle Evans  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:57 am

    As for what happened at Disney, with the crowd around listening to the song, and laughing along with their joke, we both felt it was better to walk away at that point. However, as we left the park to head over for Cherie's birthday dinner and the World of Color show in California Adventure, we did decide to go into Guest Services and file a complaint about what had occurred.

    The lady who took our report was very nice to us, and she agreed that the incident was offensive, and promised to speak to the musicians about changing their routine. Since Cherie and I have passes for most of the rest of this year, we will probably go back and seek out this group again and see if they actually have changed the routine or not. They may resist doing so because this happened to be the "highlight" of the routine where they expect to get their biggest laughs from before they finish. If we do find it still in use next time, we will almost certainly press the matter to higher authorities at Disney.

    As for the World of Color, it really was a wonderful show, and helped alleviate some of the trauma of what had occurred earlier. I videoed the whole show, so we can sit down and relive the joy of that again soon (and I'm sure we'll go see it live again, too), but unfortunately the part where the pirates made fun of trans people also happened while I was videotaping earlier in the afternoon. I am keeping that part of the video just in case we do need to use it to show anyone at Disney in the future.

  • 124. Straight for Equalit  |  February 1, 2011 at 3:59 am

    Carpool Cookie, read the current law and be proud of those roots. We must stop this terrible attempt to redefine marriage in NH! (Yes, marriage equality is the current law, so this proposed statute would "redefine" marriage as they have been using that term.

  • 125. Michelle Evans  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:02 am

    Richard, Thank you for checking out the video, and for your reaction. Yes, the reaction of puking is pretty close to the ones Cherie and I had in watching this, too. There was also another show this past week that we watched, but I don't recall off hand which one it was, and they actually had two anti-trans moments during the show. I see these sorts of things all the time, and try to put them out of my mind as quickly as possible. However, this SNL skit went way beyond anything I've seen in a very long time.

  • 126. Felyx  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:02 am

    Discombobulated… you were close… but considering your state of mind at the time you posted this… (i.e. corn-fuzzled) it is understandable.

    For the record, I just want to state that the reason I brought the hamburger on the plane (even though I hate them) was because I refused to buy (a much preferred) chicken sandwich from Chic-Fil-A. My sincere apologies for the ruckus.

    Felyx

    PS: Don't think poorly of me… flights to Europe are very long and hijacked planes have very little food on them… please understand! LOL ;P

  • 127. Michelle Evans  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:10 am

    Richard, Thank you again for being part of this great P8TT group. Yes, I find it so offensive when people say that I am a test for them of their faith, but in a negative way, in that they are supposed to reject me in order to prove their fealty. I try to tell them that maybe I am a test of their faith and their belief–to see if they actually believe in the tenants of good religion that says we are supposed to love everyone for who they are (none of this hate the sin, love the sinner garbage!), and not reject someone outside the bounds of their "normalcy."

    People often talk of how god doesn't make mistakes, and I tell them that I absolutely agree, and I am exactly the person I am supposed to be because I was created this way. And if they don't understand, then it is their problem that they are rejecting what their god has created, and that, according to their own tenants and beliefs, they are not supposed to be able to understand how and why certain things are done the way they are in this universe.

  • 128. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:15 am

    LMAO! Felyx – that fixed me for the day!!!!

    BIG SMILES

  • 129. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Me PROUD of you Michelle for your reporting to Disney and to us! I'll check out the pirate routine in March as probably will visit Disneyland then…

  • 130. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:35 am

    AnonyGrl – I hear CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) is looking for writers for a new pilot based on Angela Lansbury and "Murder She Wrote" called "Marriage She Wrote"…

    The basic premise: when all the dust settles, and marriage equality is the law of the land, the main character (based on Maggie G) will solve all the cases of missing marriages caused by SSM!

    Each episode will feature a nice christian couple, who for inexplicable reasons, decide not to get married and procreate…

    Never fear – NOMs here!

    And Maggie ties it all very neatly to those gosh-darned liberals and homosexuals (and no, Don-from-the-NOM-blogs, the communists won't be forgotten either!)

    You're scene from above could be included in the pilot as one of those wistful, "back-story" vignettes!

  • 131. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:36 am

    thank u for sharing your thought process so I can learn better ways too! It was interesting on RuPaul's Drag race season 2 some of the contestants were talking about marriage equality. Some contestants felt strongly about it (JuJuBee)…some(Raven) did not care…other person was in the middle(Shannel?)

  • 132. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:45 am

    I like it! Perhaps we could get a spin off for Louis where he becomes a cross between McGuyver and Michael Landon in Highway to Heaven, putting together anti-equality events as he drives around the country in his tour bus… and he is pursued everywhere by evil homosexual communists who try to blow up the bus on a regular basis.

  • 133. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 4:57 am

    And on the legal front, this case progresses in the 11th Circuit
    Transgender woman fired by Georgia General Assembly is back in court http://www.sdgln.com/news/2011/02/01/transgender-

  • 134. Mouse  |  February 1, 2011 at 5:37 am

    But… according to the daytime dramas, no heterosexual feels passion for the person he or she is currently married to, so "acts of passion" would generate children only with mistresses and pool boys, not with spouses.

  • 135. Mouse  |  February 1, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Even accidentally!

  • 136. Mouse  |  February 1, 2011 at 5:48 am

    When elected officials do the right thing and pass laws on their own, they are acting rogue on some liberal agenda and not representing the people, according to NOM.
    Only when lawmakers vote their way are NOM satisfied that they are doing their job properly.

    When judicial officials do the right thing and strike down discrimination that has no rational basis, they are being "activists", according to anti-equality activist group NOM.
    When judges rule in their favor, though, then the process of fighting it out in the courts is no longer activism but justice.

    NOM wants the people to be able to vote, as if mob mentality makes discrimination justified. In a few years, when homophobic thinking no longer has a simple majority, Brian and Maggie will give up on their holocaust on gays and go look for a more profitable target.

  • 137. Mouse  |  February 1, 2011 at 5:49 am

    I noticed that too. I'm really tired of that.

  • 138. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 5:51 am

    Okay…good point.

    I'll put those relatives back in the will…

  • 139. Carpool Cookie  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:09 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud-eiDxeJj4

  • 140. Rhie  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:35 am

    So the GOP are now on record as being against:

    Sympathy
    Empathy
    Fairness
    Tolerance
    Compassion

    Did I miss any?

  • 141. Kathleen  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:36 am

    Science

  • 142. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:39 am

    LOL!!!

    Families
    Marriage
    Small Government
    Equality
    The Constitution
    The Judiciary

  • 143. Rhie  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:44 am

    LOL….I never thought of that before!

  • 144. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:47 am

    Abortions for Rape/Incest Victims and women who have medical issues and will die unless she has an abortion.

  • 145. AnonyGrl  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:47 am

    If anyone tries to talk to you about Santa, PLUG YOUR EARS!

    xoxoxoxoxo

  • 146. Rhie  |  February 1, 2011 at 6:48 am

    LOL appears I missed a lot :)

    Ugh, LLB, I saw that article a couple days ago about that GOP anti-abortion bill.

  • 147. Kevyn & Felyx  |  February 1, 2011 at 8:00 am

    When Lenin was in power, it was the 'Godless Communists' that did away with laws criminalizing homosexuality… 'God Forbid' the Church should allow THAT to happen!!! It would only lead to (gasp!) MARRIAGE FOR ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!!!

    Love,
    Us

    (In 1933 however, Stalin decided to get really uncool… sigh… )

  • 148. Mike M  |  February 1, 2011 at 8:24 am

    They left out dogs. Does this mean straight people in New Hampshire who are not related by blood to dogs can marry them? Dose this mean the bill advocates bestiality since it doesn't prohibit it? And, marrying 13 and 14 year old children, does this mean all a pedophile has to do is marry their victim and then it's OK? You see what happens when you work so hard to exclude one specific group. You actually make other crimes OK even if you didn't intend to.

  • 149. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 1, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Yes, they will. And their next target will be the Jews and our half-brothers, the Arabs. And yes, the Jews and Arabs both trace their roots back to Abraham–the Jews are descended from Abraham due to Isaac, the son born to Sarah. the Arabs are from Ishmael, the son of Hagar.

  • 150. Carol  |  February 1, 2011 at 11:56 am

    And if the couple in their forties already have children, then they really can't get married!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!