New Hampshire finally legalizes same-sex marriage

[Pint0 Xtreme]

AP

New Hampshire governor signs gay marriage law
By NORMA LOVE – 11 minutes ago
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.
Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.
The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.
Lynch demanded — and got — language protecting the rights of religious opponents of gay marriage before signing the bills.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire legislators approved a measure Wednesday that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign it later in the afternoon.
He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.
The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House — where the outcome was more in doubt — followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote.
"If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness," Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.
New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though Maine opponents hope to overturn that state's law with a public vote.
California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.
New Hampshire opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process that required three bills.
"It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.
Lynch, a Democrat, personally opposes gay marriage but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."
Lynch said he would veto gay marriage if the law didn't address churches and religious groups.
The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.
It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said "charitable and educational" instead of "charitable or educational."
The House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.
The vote was supporters' last chance this year in New Hampshire.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Finally! What a tortured process that was!

[The Romulan Republic]

How many is that now?

Ah well, time to check off another state on the list of relentless social change. And smile as the Right takes another defeat to their agenda.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

How many is that now?

Ah well, time to check off another state on the list of relentless social change. And smile as the Right takes another defeat to their agenda.

Six states in total and five in New England (Iowa being the sixth).

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just stunned at how quickly its happened. It was two, wasn't it, last year?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm just stunned at how quickly its happened. It was two, wasn't it, last year?

Massachussets - 2003
Connecticut - 2008
Iowa, Vermont, Maine* and New Hampshire - 2009

* - Maine's marriage equality law might be overturned by a voter referendum so we'll see how that pans out.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, are there any others that look likely to switch over before the end of the year? I've heard New York, but I don't know any others.

Be nice if we could get another four to go with the first half of the year, but I'm not counting on it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hmm, are there any others that look likely to switch over before the end of the year? I've heard New York, but I don't know any others.

Be nice if we could get another four to go with the first half of the year, but I'm not counting on it.

New York and New Jersey could go this year.

Then, referendums in Oregon and California to legalize gay marriage and overturn their constitutional amendments banning it, in 2010;

The other low-hanging fruit is Washington State (probably 2011), Minnesota (probably 2011), Illinois (probably 2011).

States between 2011 and 2015 liable to pass gay marriage would then be Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island.

That constitutes all the movement I believe to be possible on the issue before the 2020s.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

At some point, it would become more fruitful of us to approach this issue not through a state by state basis but on a federal basis; in other words, we need to repeal DOMA.

[CmdrWilkens]

Massachussets - 2003
Connecticut - 2008
Iowa, Vermont, Maine* and New Hampshire - 2009

* - Maine's marriage equality law might be overturned by a voter referendum so we'll see how that pans out.

Technically New Hampshire won't be until 2010 as the law doesn't take effect until Jan 1st.

New York and New Jersey could go this year.

Then, referendums in Oregon and California to legalize gay marriage and overturn their constitutional amendments banning it, in 2010;

The other low-hanging fruit is Washington State (probably 2011), Minnesota (probably 2011), Illinois (probably 2011).

States between 2011 and 2015 liable to pass gay marriage would then be Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island.

That constitutes all the movement I believe to be possible on the issue before the 2020s.

Maryland has a ban on the books and along with Delaware has a large population of semi-rural/exurban residents who would probably work to hold off on such for a bit. Obviously time is in favor but I think both of those states are more likely to be towards 2020 than prior to 2015.

Anyway with DC recently deciding to recognize same-sex marriages from the rest of the US I think its entirely possible that the District could see full marriage equality before 2015 though not in the next few years. Also Wisconsin has tended populist enough that one could envision them taking the issue either to referrendum or the legislature assuming Iowa endures the inevitable challenge.

[Civil War Man]

Rhode Island would have it by now, except the Governor and the State's Speaker of the House have been extremely obstructionist about it.

Of course, if you went by the recent Brown University poll, Rhode Island could pull it off with a voter referendum.

Brown University

Most Rhode Island voters favor same-sex marriage by a margin of 60 percent to 31 percent, according to a new statewide survey conducted by researchers at Brown University. A larger majority, 75 percent, would support a law allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

...

The survey was conducted May 18-20, 2009, at Brown University by Marion Orr, the Fred Lippitt Professor of Public Policy and Political Science and director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy and the John Hazen White Public Opinion Laboratory. It is based on a statewide random sample of 593 registered voters in Rhode Island. Overall, the poll had a margin of error of about plus or minus 4 percentage points.

When surveyed, 60 percent of registered voters indicated they would support a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married and 31 percent said they would oppose a same-sex marriage law; 9 percent did not know. There were no appreciable differences between men and women — 60 percent of women and 59 percent of men support same-sex marriage. The poll results show generational differences in support of same-sex marriage. Younger voters support same-sex marriage at a higher levels than older voters. For example, among 18-29 year olds, 87 percent support same-sex marriage, as do 70 percent of the 30-39 year olds. Among those 60-69 years old, however, only 49 percent support same-sex marriage, and only 32 percent of those 70 and older support same-sex marriage. The survey also uncovered partisan differences in support for same-sex marriage. While 77 percent of Democrats say they support same-sex marriage, only 28 percent of Republicans do. Among independents, 56 percent said they would support a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The survey also asked respondents if they would support or oppose a law allowing same-sex couples to form a civil union. Seventy-five percent of the respondents indicated they would support civil unions for same-sex couples. Only 17 percent said they would oppose a law that would allow civil unions for same-sex couples. While generational differences are also present on the civil union issues (younger voters are more likely to support civil unions for same-sex couples), a majority of respondents in all age categories said they would support a civil union law. Indeed, 70 percent of those 60-69 years of age and 57 percent of those over 70 years of age say they would support a law allowing civil unions for same-sex couples. Showing the broader appeal of a civil union law compared to a same-sex marriage law, a majority (55 percent) of Republicans reported they would support a civil union law for same-sex couples.

Tempting, isn't it?

[La Maupin]

This was in my twitter feed today:

gendercrash Would like to see National LGBT orgs at least acknowledge that win in NH is bittersweet and commitment to work on passing trans equality

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Maryland has a ban on the books and along with Delaware has a large population of semi-rural/exurban residents who would probably work to hold off on such for a bit. Obviously time is in favor but I think both of those states are more likely to be towards 2020 than prior to 2015.

Well, it is possible to overturn a law fairly easily.

Anyway with DC recently deciding to recognize same-sex marriages from the rest of the US I think its entirely possible that the District could see full marriage equality before 2015 though not in the next few years. Also Wisconsin has tended populist enough that one could envision them taking the issue either to referrendum or the legislature assuming Iowa endures the inevitable challenge.

Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and anything similar to it; the process of amending it would require two votes of the legislature in successive legislatures, and then a vote of the people.

[ray245]

One question I have to ask, is any federal ruling legalizing gay marriage plausible in the near future? I have to wonder how long is it going to take for states like Texas to legalise gay marriage.

Just because a sizable amount of people in the general public support gay marriages doesn't mean the people they elected in will listen to them.

[Starglider]

One question I have to ask, is any federal ruling legalizing gay marriage plausible in the near future?

No. Politics is the art of the possible. It isn't a big winner, but it is a big vote loser, and it will get all the 'oh noes huge Federal government what about states rights!' people even more worked up than they already are. You'll have to wait for the Republicans to finally abandon their fundie-derrived wedge issue strategy, and that'll take a while. A generation perhaps.

Just because a sizable amount of people in the general public support gay marriages doesn't mean the people they elected in will listen to them.

Far fewer people will refuse to vote for a politician because they don't support a gay marriage bill than will refuse to vote for one because they do. Sad but true. I can't see how the Supreme Court could rule that the constitution implies the right to same sex marriage when it took an amendment to make slavery illegal, a much more serious issue (and one you would think covered by the wording of the declaration of independence).

[CmdrWilkens]

One question I have to ask, is any federal ruling legalizing gay marriage plausible in the near future?

No. Politics is the art of the possible. It isn't a big winner, but it is a big vote loser, and it will get all the 'oh noes huge Federal government what about states rights!' people even more worked up than they already are. You'll have to wait for the Republicans to finally abandon their fundie-derrived wedge issue strategy, and that'll take a while. A generation perhaps.

Well plausible probably not but possible is certainly out there since we've got the current anti-8 lawsuit being prep'd. Now that I've seen a bit more of their rationale and the fact that they've got an awful lot more in terms of precedent behind them (though most of those are the obvious anti-miscegenation and anti-gay overturns) it stands an honest to God chance but that is all I would give it. If Saclia were to retire or otherwise leave the bench then I'd be hopeful of the moderates pushing back on Kennedy since you'd have a more liberal leaning court. If that were to happen (and I'm not betting on it) I'd expect a 6-3 ruling of Stevens (writing the opinion), Ginnsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor and Scalia's replacement versus Alito (writing the dissent), Roberts, and Thomas. If Scalia doesn't leave by time the argument gets to the court I know he would side with the dissent and Kennedy might be pushed to vote with them and shooting the whole thing down.

Just because a sizable amount of people in the general public support gay marriages doesn't mean the people they elected in will listen to them.

Far fewer people will refuse to vote for a politician because they don't support a gay marriage bill than will refuse to vote for one because they do. Sad but true. I can't see how the Supreme Court could rule that the constitution implies the right to same sex marriage when it took an amendment to make slavery illegal, a much more serious issue (and one you would think covered by the wording of the declaration of independence).

Well Slavery was Constitutionally enshrined, specifically:

Article I Section 2:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article I Section 9:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Article IV Section 2:
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

and the Declaration carries no force of law. So anyway the issue of slavery could not equate an equal protection violation when the states were not yet held to that standard and the Constitution specifically ascribes that the state's may regulate the holding of another person in bondage and other states MUST give such persons up to their lawful owners. Gay Marriage is more notable in that, and this is what the above lawsuit points out:
- There is no Constitutional definition allowing for a secondary class of citiznship based on sexual preference
- Virtually every law (and Prop8 in paticular) is the result of targeted discrimination and not thoughtful policy pronouncement
- Equal protection applies to this case as there is no compelling state interest. Moreover even if there were it is compromised by the retaliatory nature of the laws in questions.