Skip to main content

This just in:

An amendment to a bill to allow same-sex marriage in New Hampshire was sent to committee on Wednesday, putting the future of the measure in doubt.

Earlier today the Senate passed the few changes Governor Lynch demanded last week and it was expected that the House would also approve the amendment seeking to protect churches from lawsuits.

But by a vote of 188-186 the house failed this afternoon to agree with the NH Senate and the Governor. By sending the bill back to committee, the House has given themselves the option of bringing the bill back up this session.

This is very disappointing as most of us expected the bill to be passed this week.  The House earlier passed another version of a marriage equality bill, albeit very closely, that didn't contain the language that Governor Lynch is now demanding.

"The language that will be added to the marriage equality bill strikes a clear and strong balance between our core values of supporting equality for all while at the same time protecting our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion," said Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-District 2.

Originally posted to impygirl on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:16 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I just heard on MSNBC.... (3+ / 0-)

    ....that it was voted down 186-188.  Am I wrong?

  •  This is pretty much covered in greater detail (3+ / 0-)

    in The Erratic Synapse diary a few diaries down.  But thanks for the effort.

  •  Who are our NH experts? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skywaker9, KentuckyKat

    Do we have links to NH resources?

    "Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

    by homogenius on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

  •  Damn, damn! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, KentuckyKat, impygirl

    And I thought we were THERE.  Yes, I know the language requested by the governor is problematic in some regards -- I'm not thrilled that church-owned halls that otherwise function as fully-public facilities, are thereby entitled to refuse us.

    But geez, I'll settle.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

    •  No, don't damn (0+ / 0-)

      This version DESERVES to fail.
      I do not live in NH but even if I did,
      I WOULD NOT WANT to get there LIKE THIS,
      with the final thing we remember this passage by
      as a dance to pacify right-wing asshats.
      New Hampshire DOES know how to do this

      The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

      by ge0rge on Wed May 20, 2009 at 04:01:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're never one to compromise (0+ / 0-)

        we know THAT.  But politics is the art of the possible, however much you may dislike that.  And I'd rather get 98.5% of the rights for NH couples than 0%.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Wed May 20, 2009 at 04:14:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  0% is not the alternative (0+ / 0-)

          The alternative is the Governor gets his head out of his ass, with our help if possible.

          The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

          by ge0rge on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:52:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  We have our convention coming up on the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    5th (or 6th?), and it'll be ugly if this isn't passed by then.

    "Most fools don't understand my worldview." - Ignatius J. Reilly

    by impygirl on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:28:00 PM PDT

  •  I don't understand what happened (0+ / 0-)

    I'm guessing purist Democrats voted against it because of Lynch's provisions? Idiots.

    Don't donate to the DSCC in 2010 - they'll give your money to Harry Reid. Donate to the candidates instead!

    by arcticshadow on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:58:11 PM PDT

  •  Federal Aegument/ Marriage Equality (0+ / 0-)

    Dear President Obama,

                    I’m writing to you, as a member of a minority group, seeking your opinion regarding your views on “equal protection under the law”.  I am a citizen of the United States, I am gay, and therefore am a member of a minority group. The debate regarding same sex civil marriages has recently hit fever pitch in this country. Recently, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed his state's same-sex marriage bill less than an hour after the legislature approved it. He stated, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
                   Why is it that Federal Law does not seem to uphold the same high standard of fairness and equal protection under the law? In fact, Federal Law actually pro-actively discriminates against couples that legally have same-sex civil marriages. The fact is that the federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The act also specifically denies federal benefits to same-sex couples that have legally state sanctioned civil marriages. The act further dictates that any federal law that applies to married couples does not apply to same-sex couples with legal civil marriages. Furthermore because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act the United States Census Bureau is currently “editing” the 2010 census responses of same-sex couples that married legally in California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, and Connecticut.  Does that sound like the United States of America? When asked to describe their relationships to others in their household, if a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as their "husband/wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will automatically assign them to the "unmarried partner" category.  Legally married same-sex couples will be indistinguishable in census data from those who chose "unmarried partner" to describe their relationship.  The federal government does not count us, and apparently according to the government we don’t count.
                      As a physician radiation oncologist who treats hundreds of indigent/ un-insured, as well as, insured patients (straight and gay) annually in Los Angeles, I am particularly outraged at the fact that the federal government continues to discriminate against legal same-sex couples and their children and family members by specifically leaving them out of the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This Act requires covered employers to give eligible employees up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for their own serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Currently, the FMLA does not require employers to provide leave to care for a legally married same-sex spouse. Are we not human? Do we not deserve the same compassion and assurances from our government to which we pay taxes, as other citizens of the United States? Is this consistent with “fairness” and “equal protection under the law”?
                   How would you feel if this country still denied inter-racial marriages simply because 51% of the population felt they were immoral or un-ethical or unnatural?  The state of Hawaii, not the United States of America, allowed your parents to marry in 1961. There was a lack of federal leadership, yet finally in 1968 all state inter-racial bans on marriage were thrown out.  This was a very long time to wait for equality, in fact, as I’m sure you are aware the fight for inter-racial marriage began in 1948, it took 20 years of states arguing, state constitutions being “amended” to allow discrimination (sound familiar), until all the madness was finally overturned by the federal government because they finally did the right thing and gave these citizens equal protection under the law.
                  As Americans did we not learn from our ugly history?  As an African American growing up in the United States, you of all people, should recognize the need for federal regulation to protect and treat all citizens equally. Why do you feel gays who chose to have a civil marriage, should be treated differently than inter-racial couples? Why does the “equal protection under the law” clause in our constitution not apply to us? If you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can somehow be overcome, and therefore not be given an equal if not protected status, then I ask you to think about this. Suppose someone told you, you could not have federal recognition and rights under marriage, you could not be counted in the census and that your responses to the census will be edited, and you could not benefit from the Family Medical Leave Act, unless you were forced to separate from Michelle, the person you love dearly, and marry another man. If you did that then you w
    ould be recognized as married. How unnatural would that feel for you? Get the point? We are born gay, just as you were born black.  No difference. Just as you had no choice in being born black, we had no choice in being born gay.  Furthermore, you certainly can't argue that you "chose" to be heterosexual; it is a ludicrous argument when people say we "choose to be gay".  We certainly have more similarities in our plight for equal protection under the law than differences. Remember,  this is not a religious argument, it is a civil rights argument. We don’t want to force religions to accept gay marriage; we just want equal protection under the law. We don’t want to force anyone into saying they believe in gay marriage, everyone has the right to believe what they want.  We want to be treated equally and with dignity;  and not ostracized by our federal government.
                 President Obama, I am asking you to think about your own experiences growing up in this country as a minority, and how helpful the federal government was in assuring you equal protection and equal rights under the law. My husband and I are law abiding, federal tax paying citizens, who contribute greatly to our community and society at large; we along with millions of other same sex couples are simply asking to be treated equally by our government. Is that too much to ask for in the country for which you are president? I am calling upon you, President Obama, to stand up to the narrow-minded bigotry that has made its way into federal law and to do the right thing. I am calling upon you to forcefully overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. I am calling upon you to be the agent of change, which you had talked about during your campaign. I am calling upon you do to do what is right and just, and treat all Americans equally. I am calling upon you to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military.  I am calling upon you to call for vast federal civil rights legislation, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting us a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, and housing.
                Like you, I believe that everyone can help contribute to change for the better in our country. Change we can believe in. Five states have legalized same sex civil marriages; several are well on their way. We need a leader to insure equality. It took twenty years for the federal government to put an end to all the anti inter-racial marriage bans in this country, how long we will have to wait?



Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site