New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

[EmperorSolo51]

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_ ... icle=37639

Benson's signature bars gay marriage recognition</I>
By GARRY RAYNO
State House Bureau Chief



CONCORD — Gov. Craig Benson yesterday signed into law a bill that blocks the recognition of gay marriages.

The law becomes effective today. The bill, SB 427, was a response to a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision giving gay couples the right to marry beginning Monday.

Supporters of the bill said New Hampshire could be forced to honor those marriages under existing law.

Benson did not release a statement after he signed, but indicated in the past his support for the bill and said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

Freedom to Marry board member Beth McGuinn of Hopkinton said “That was not surprising, that was the fear of the legislature passing the bill. The fear is someone from Massachusetts would come up to New Hampshire and claim the right to be married. New Hampshire’s new law says ‘stay in Massachusetts’”

The bill Benson signed does not define marriage in New Hampshire as between one man and one woman as the original version did, although that provision is already in New Hampshire law.

Also included in the bill is a study commission to look at many issues including the legal and policy implications of extending the rights and responsibilities of same-sex marriage and the issues of civil rights, laws and legal obligations.

McGuinn said a same-sex couple should be appointed to the commission. “We will be prepared and suggest some individuals to be appointed,” she said.

Supporters said the bill is needed or other states could set public policy for New Hampshire because the state has to honor the laws of other states. They said traditional marriage has worked for ages and should be maintained.

Roman Catholic Bishop John McCormack of the Manchester diocese backed the bill and told a House committee the need was never greater to close the loophole as Massachusetts will soon begin issuing marriage permits for gay couples. Opponents of the bill argued that it was unnecessary because the state’s laws already define marriage as between one man and one woman. They argued the bill was a slap in the face to gay and lesbians and takes away their civil rights.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

[SirNitram]

Yet another reason not to like New Hampshire. Oh well.

[EmperorSolo51]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

[HemlockGrey]

How is banning gay marriage even remotely constitutional, given the 14th Amendment?

[SirNitram]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

And it's a matter of constitutional fact that gender bias isn't allowed in this country.

[Alyeska]

What, no smilely face this time EmperorSolo51?

[EmperorSolo51]

What, no smilely face this time EmperorSolo51?

I was too lazy to put one on. Besides, such an extreme Liberal board such as this would jump on me like white on rice, if I had done such a thing.

[Alyeska]

What, no smilely face this time EmperorSolo51?

I was too lazy to put one on. Besides, such an extreme Liberal board such as this would jump on me like white on rice, if I had done such a thing.

In other words, your a bigot.

[EmperorSolo51]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

And it's a matter of constitutional fact that gender bias isn't allowed in this country.

Show me one Law or Supreme court case that states that states do not have the right to to say how and to whom marriages are given. Marriage is a privilege not a right.

[EmperorSolo51]

What, no smilely face this time EmperorSolo51?

I was too lazy to put one on. Besides, such an extreme Liberal board such as this would jump on me like white on rice, if I had done such a thing.

In other words, your a bigot.

Not Really. I have been a supporter of civil unions.

[Alyeska]

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

And it's a matter of constitutional fact that gender bias isn't allowed in this country.

Show me one Law or Supreme court case that states that states do not have the right to to say how and to whom marriages are given. Marriage is a privilege not a right.

14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law. Giving only certain people rights and privaleges that others don't have access to violates the 14th amendment.

[Alyeska]

I was too lazy to put one on. Besides, such an extreme Liberal board such as this would jump on me like white on rice, if I had done such a thing.

In other words, your a bigot.

Not Really. I have been a supporter of civil unions.

The Supreme Court already decided that "Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.

[EmperorSolo51]

In other words, your a bigot.

Not Really. I have been a supporter of civil unions.

The Supreme Court already decided that "Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.

That was regarding race, gender, and ethnic origin, not Sexuality. Try again.

[SirNitram]

Not Really. I have been a supporter of civil unions.

The Supreme Court already decided that "Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.

That was regarding race, gender, and ethnic origin, not Sexuality. Try again.

And how is this different, precisely?

[Alyeska]

That was regarding race, gender, and ethnic origin, not Sexuality. Try again.

Irrelevent. The core issues are the same and it still applies. Equal protection under the law and Seperate=/Equal means that homosexual mariages are supported by constitutional law.

[Crown]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

Yes, but wasn't that arguement already striked down by the SCOTUS, which is what led to Massech. allowing gay marriage? Or was that the state SC?

[Gil Hamilton]

That was regarding race, gender, and ethnic origin, not Sexuality. Try again.

It is a matter of gender. If a man is forbidden for marrying another man, but not a woman, what is the discrimination? On the basis of the gender of the other man. That would be gender discrimination.

[EmperorSolo51]

I forsee a civil rights group taking this to the Supreme Court.

How? It's a state right to regulate how and who gets married in the individual states.

Yes, but wasn't that arguement already striked down by the SCOTUS, which is what led to Massech. allowing gay marriage? Or was that the state SC?

It was the MA Supreme judicial court that ruled on the matter not the US Supreme court.

[jegs2]

Sounds like the people of New Hampshire have spoken via their elected legislature. That being said, I foresee the judiciary being quick to strike down the will of the people in that state -- it generally takes only one or two liberal judges. Barring that, special interest groups will label the state as "bigoted" and "intolerant" until they are pressured into repealing the decision.

[HemlockGrey]

Sounds like the people of New Hampshire have spoken via their elected legislature. That being said, I foresee the judiciary being quick to strike down the will of the people in that state -- it generally takes only one or two liberal judges. Barring that, special interest groups will label the state as "bigoted" and "intolerant" until they are pressured into repealing the decision.

...and they would be entirely right. Please explain how flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment does not bely an underlying intolerance or bigotry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I was too lazy to put one on. Besides, such an extreme Liberal board such as this would jump on me like white on rice, if I had done such a thing.

In other words, your a bigot.

Not Really. I have been a supporter of civil unions.

In other words you're a bigot that thinks that the government should endorse your religious delusions that you own a particular word and the right to define and use it only to your specifications.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That was regarding race, gender, and ethnic origin, not Sexuality. Try again.

And how is not marrying a person of your choice, regardless of gender, not protected under the anti-gender descrimination?

And don't pull the "they are allowed to marry across genders whoever they want." That's like granting blacks the freedom to only marry other blacks and then calling it not racist.

[jegs2]

...and they would be entirely right. Please explain how flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment does not bely an underlying intolerance or bigotry.

I disagree with defining the act of homosexuality as a right. Therefore, I take every opportunity to vote against any legislation or action attempting to condone it as such, much the same as I would oppose legislation attempting to legalize prostitution, theft, adultery, purgery, or any other form of sin.

[SirNitram]

...and they would be entirely right. Please explain how flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment does not bely an underlying intolerance or bigotry.

I disagree with defining the act of homosexuality as a right. Therefore, I take every opportunity to vote against any legislation or action attempting to condone it as such, much the same as I would oppose legislation attempting to legalize prostitution, theft, adultery, purgery, or any other form of sin.

You should really read the Establishment Clause.