Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

New Hampshire House committee votes to ban same-sex marriage

Marriage equality

By Adam Bink

They aren’t giving up. The bill would allow same-sex marriages to continue, but ban future ones and permit civil unions. The full House would vote in 2012.

We defeated this earlier in the year and we’re going to do so again. Courage Campaign and our members organized Camp Courage trainings throughout the state to mobilize the grassroots throughout the state with our friends at Granite State Equality. So we’ve got the infrastructure in place. That infrastructure turned out 540 people against the bill to just 40 in favor at the big public hearing on the bill. Public polling back in February showed a whopping 62% against repeal, and that number is only going to go up. If the New Hampshire House leadership wants to dig themselves in this hole, we’re going to be ready to fight back.


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  September 16, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Yeah, let's see if that passes constitutional muster.

  • 2. Oregonian  |  September 16, 2011 at 11:32 am

    I guess they're picking "die" then? Because that sure doesn't sound like living free.

  • 3. DaveP  |  September 16, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Have these people ever heard of a little thing called the Prop 8 mess? You know, it's that thing in California where marriage equality was taken away and then there was this long drawn out legal process, and the whole thing cost untold millions of dollars and did nothing but hurt people for no goddamm reason at all? Yeah, that thing. And these morons really want to subject their own state to a wasteful divisive disaster like that? And just how do they think the public will respond to this?

    They will accomplish nothing except destroying their own political careers. Let's do everything we can to help them do it.

  • 4. Ann S.  |  September 16, 2011 at 12:26 pm


  • 5. Dana_Jeanne  |  September 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Um… it would allow same-sex marriages to continue? As opposed to WHAT? Making them all get a divorce? Or just saying: tra-la-la now you're all UNmarried…???

    So, why are people "okay" with civil unions, but not with marriage? What's the difference?

  • 6. DaveP  |  September 16, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Yup. They are trying to do exactly the same thing that Prop 8 did. All of the same sex couples that are already married would still be married (isn't that frikken generous of them) but no more new same sex marriages would be allowed. So there would be gays who are married, and gays who cannot marry. And someone who is already legally married to someone of the same sex can divorce that person BUT CANNOT RE-MARRY. Not even to the same person they were married to before. It's insane. Not to mention unconstitutional.

  • 7. Alan_Eckert  |  September 16, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    The explicit wording that could keep those already married as married makes it even more blatantly unconstitutional since it is pointing out that it would be taking away rights of gay people. It's almost (but should never come to pass) worth having it pass so it can go through the courts.

  • 8. JoeRH  |  September 16, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    Can we start a concentration camp for republicans? Cleanse the US of their filthy existence? We'd all be better off without them…

  • 9. Straght4Equality  |  September 16, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    I got an email from my NH state Rep. (a Democrat) today. With the Republican in charge things sound truly gruesome. 35 statutory and study committees have been set up. These should have R and D members in proportion to their representation. That would mean 3 R to 1 D. But Speaker O’Brien (R) has not named a Democrat to any of these committees.

    Proposed bills include these:
    · Eliminating the requirement that an attorney be a member of the NH Bar
    · Requiring the courts to give every woman who gets a restraining order a gun and a box of ammunition and provide her with instructions in shooting
    · Making March 31 of each year the day to remember Terri Schiavo
    · Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools as a theory

    This used to be a sensible state!

  • 10. Ronnie  |  September 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    LGBT History……

    70 Years After Discharging Him for Being Gay, Navy Changes WWII Vet's 'Undesirable' Discharge to 'Honorable'

    "Melvin Dwork, a World War II veteran discharged in 1944 after the Navy discovered he was gay, has had his discharge changed from "undesirable" to "honorable", the AP reports:

    The decision to amend his discharge papers was made by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records in Washington."

    In its Aug. 17 proceedings, obtained by The Associated Press, the board noted that the Navy has undergone a “radical departure” from the outright ban on gays that was in place in 1944. The board pointed out Dwork’s “exemplary period of active duty” and said that changing the terms of his discharge was done “in the interest of justice.”

    Dwork had been outed by his boyfriend at the time of his discharge, a fact that he only discovered last year, when the Navy unsealed his records. The former corpsman, now 89, "will now be eligible for the benefits he had long been denied, including medical care and a military burial."

    (me) Well, that is the least they could do, 70years after he risked his life for this country…. Huge thanks to Melvin Dwork for your service to our county….This article links to the full Washington Post article…. awesome read….Not just LGBT History, but American History as well……. <3…Ronnie

  • 11. dwpiper  |  September 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Um… Say *what*? Those are outright lunacy….

  • 12. Straght4Equality  |  September 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Indeed. I sure home they get voter backlash, but most people don't pay attention to what is going on in state government.

  • 13. Steve  |  September 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Hey, the last one is sensible. The problem is that Christofacists think "scientific theory" means "assumption" or "wild guess"

  • 14. Sagesse  |  September 16, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    So. Saturday is Constitution Day. And, if you recall, since the last election, there is "a new rule in the House, where Republican leaders require every bill to carry a “Constitutional Authority Statement.” The idea was to demonstrate that a new GOP majority respected the enduring restraints of the Constitution."

    Congress finds, and lists, meaning in Constitution

    My question: What would the Constitutional Authority Statement have been for DOMA?

  • 15. Badger  |  September 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Maybe I can cheer you all up with some news out of my home country the UK. Rumours all over the place that there will be an announcement today that the government will introduce a marriage equaliry bill during the current Parliament. It has the personal support of the Prime Minister David Cameron and all 3 major political parties. It appears it may be announced today at the Liberal Dem Party conference.

  • 16. thark  |  September 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Yes it does.

    Evil needs to be called out.

    Law-abiding Gay people do not need other gays curbing yet more constitutional rights (1st amendment) just in case someone *might* be squeamish about what was said.

    Those days are DONE. JoeRH: Antigays STINK AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THE STENCH. (and any opinion from an Antigay is USELESS to thinking citizens…)

  • 17. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Republicans aren't the problem, per se. The GOP, however, is a definite problem. Even for Republicans. It's time to remind Republican voters that the GOP does not represent Republican or American ideals.

  • 18. Sagesse  |  September 16, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Hands up, anyone who's going to miss Elaine Donnelly after Tuesday Sep 20. Impose? Unilaterally?

    DONNELLY: Congress resists rush for an LGBT military
    Obama Pentagon tries to impose homosexual service unilaterally

  • 19. jpmassar  |  September 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Awesome! Thanks for the tipoff.

    here's a more detailed writeup

  • 20. Sagesse  |  September 16, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Ellen Barkin Joins Cast Of Gay Marriage Ban Prop 8 Play;…

  • 21. Sagesse  |  September 16, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    I'm speechless.

    North Carolina's James Forrester Tells Lesbian Mom To Move To New York;…

    "Forrester added that the majority of North Carolinians don't want “homosexuality and lesbianism in their state.”

  • 22. Ann S.  |  September 16, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Thanks, JP!

  • 23. FlexSF  |  September 16, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    I feel your disgust. Republicans are assholes!

  • 24. Sagesse  |  September 17, 2011 at 6:03 am

    I lose track of progress in the House… new sponsor for the Respect for Marriage Act, for North Carolina. Apologies if this is not new news.

    N.C. Congressman Opposes Antigay Amendment, Will Cosponsor DOMA Repeal

  • 25. bjasonecf  |  September 17, 2011 at 6:04 am

    UPDATE Windsor v. USA:

    For those who are interested, here are AFFIDAVITS in support of Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment:


    Anne Peplau:

    Michael Lamb:

    Also, a Declaration in support of Summary Judgment by Lisa M. Diamond:

  • 26. Sagesse  |  September 17, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Megyn Kelly Debunks Gay-Bashing Psychiatrist’s ‘Dancing With the Stars’ Theories


    Megyn Kelly Doubles Down: Attacks Against Chaz Bono Could Lead To Persecution Of Transgender People

  • 27. RWG  |  September 17, 2011 at 6:40 am

    The difference is, for them to accept marriage for same-sex couples requires them to acknowledge that were are all equal, that their lives and relationships are not superior to ours and that we are in every way as fully human as they are. That is a concept they cannot accept.

  • 28. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2011 at 7:16 am

    Gethin Anthony from HBO's "Game of Thrones" joins the Straight But Not Narrow campaign…… <3…Ronnie:
    [youtube rgDn-5A5b2A&feature=feedu youtube]

  • 29. Josie  |  September 17, 2011 at 7:41 am

    I saw this today and my heart hurts:

  • 30. Ray in MA  |  September 17, 2011 at 8:16 am

    However, it is EXTREMELY economically beneficial for NH lawyers!

  • 31. SFExPat  |  September 17, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Gov Lynch is not going to run again. Do NH's legislative TeaPotty-ers have a veto-proof majority? Are they worried about another Demo governor?

    But it does appear the NH GOP is ignoring the First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.

  • 32. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 17, 2011 at 10:24 am

    I'ts the word "marriage" that matters to some. It's like a club, and gay folk aren't welcome to join, you know, like the boy scouts. They really think we are going to accept 2nd class status
    .I'm sorry civil unions arr NOT marriage, I for one will NOT accept anything less than the word MARRIAGE end of discussion!

  • 33. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 17, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Their opinion—> Email ABC Network and let them know that we will not tolerate these subjects being forced into our homes.
    My opinion—-> So has someone chained them to the couch and taken their remote away from them? NOPE! So they need to shut their hateful corn holes and watch some fake christian evangelical tell them stories and outright lies so you send them MONEY…
    Discriminatory, gulable and UN-christian !

  • 34. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 17, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I hijacked their form letter that they are asking everyone to send to ABC, deleted their wording and typed my own in it's place asking ABC to disregard the emails they are getting from that hateful site and to leave the show just as it is! hehe….

  • 35. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 17, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Off Topic (not really though) A so called christian high school kicks a girl out after she "comes out"
    You can help by signing the petition to the school..

  • 36. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Tim, I had the same idea and used their form letter to send a message supportive of Chaz.

  • 37. truthspew  |  September 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I'm glad you guys are active in New Hampshire. This "Now you can, now you can't" yo-yo of equality is getting on my nerves. I see it as ultimately reaching the U.S. Supreme court because it's precisely the same behavior we saw during the 1960's that culminated in Loving v. Virginia.

  • 38. frisky1  |  September 18, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Take a look at this blog post making the rounds by a former Republican operative. Can't say any of this is surprising but its puts all of what's going on on in the GOP, the right, and now in our mainstream government in perspective.

    "It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant."

  • 39. Warner  |  September 18, 2011 at 3:14 am

    but they are okay with facisem and child molestation, as long as it is the facists doing the molestiation?

  • 40. Sagesse  |  September 18, 2011 at 5:20 am

    OT but not quite. Illuminating the ideology that has come to drive the Republican-led culture wars. From Andrew Sullivan (referring to the article frisky1 linked to above).

    Republicanism As Religion

    "That's how I explain the current GOP. It can only think in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated, global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always bad. Government is never good. Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish America. Terror suspects are terrorists. When Americans torture, it is not torture. When Christians murder, they are not Christians. And if you change your mind on any of these issues, you are a liberal, an apostate, and will be attacked."

  • 41. david0296  |  September 18, 2011 at 7:48 am

    There has to be a rational basis to pass discriminatory laws. The fact that gay couples are already married there proves that there is no legal reason to ban marriage equality. This is clearly personal animus directly at a group of people that these religious Republicans disapprove of. What they're doing is 100% unconstitutional… and immoral.

    Is the New Hampshire Supreme Court able to prevent this from every reaching the public? Unfortunately, the California S.C. wasn't able to do this.

  • 42. Sheryl_Carver  |  September 18, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Me, too, Tim & Ann!

    I have signed up with a few sites like this to keep track of petitions & emails, then send the opposite to whomever they are currently targeting. Would keep track of more, but am concerned about my mental health if I tried to deal with too many of them. :-)

  • 43. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Wow Sagesse, that was a long read but justified a lot of the feelings I had about the Grand o'l Party!

  • 44. Sagesse  |  September 18, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Give credit where credit is due… frisky1 posted the long article :). I just posted Andrew Sullivan's takeaway. A thought-provoking Sunday read.

  • 45. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    And thanks to frisky1 as well..Answered a lot of my questions…..

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