Lynch's Corner

I don't trust John Lynch.  I haven't for quite some time.  The reason for my own distrust is because I was directly lied to.  I wrote the Governor when Democrats were looking to take away the right of a parent to know when their child is going for a dangerous medical procedure, an abortion.  I reminded our governor that a child cannot take a pill from the school nurse for a headache without parents first being called so I had hoped he would protect the right of a parent to know when his or her child was going to have an abortion.  He wrote me back a very nice letter (which I still have) saying he would never take away a parents right to know what is going on with their child and that he only desired to make sure that medical emergencies were allowed for in times when parents couldn't be notified.  Well when push came to shove, he did take away parental rights.  Now a child of 14 or 15 can walk into planned parenthood and get an abortion without their parents even knowing it happened.  Lynch lied.

Now Lynch's saying and doing different things yet again and in doing so he's successfully backed himself into a corner I doubt he can get out of easily.

Let's look at his statements over the past couple years and you'll understand what I mean.

First in 2007, NH passed civil union laws giving homosexual couples the same basic rights as heterosexual couples.  Lynch had this to say:

Asked why he opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, Lynch said, "I still think marriage is between a man and a woman, but this prevents discrimination."

In 2008 Lynch restated the same belief during the debates stating "I do not support gay marriage".

Fast forward to 2009.  The house and senate pass a same sex marriage bill and the bill makes it to Lynch's desk awaiting his signature or veto.  My opinion on the matter aside (which I've discussed in other articles you can read HERE), Lynch's statements were quite clear.  Based on his statements one would think his only option without sounding hypocritical would be to veto the bill.

Ah, but he didn't.  Instead of vetoing the bill he pushed back with an ultimatum.  He asked for strong language to be inserted to protect the 1st Amendment allowing the religious aspect of "marriage" to be protected and for religions that do not condone homosexuality to be protected.  His full statement can be read HERE.  Here are a couple key quotes:

I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.


New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

“That is what I believe we must do today.

“But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.


But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.

“I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.

“This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

“This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.
It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

“If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.

How can someone say they oppose gay marriage as Lynch did in the debate to saying he will sign such a bill under certain conditions?  That alone puzzles me.

But be that as it may the conditions he asked for were not meet so this leaves Lynch trapped in a corner of his own creation.  Does he alienate the liberal left who want him to support this bill despite it not meeting the requirements he said it needed?  It wouldn't be the first time he said one thing and did another as I pointed out above with Parental Rights.  Or does he openly show himself publicly to be someone who's word cannot be trusted?  He made it clear if they didn't pass his changes he would veto the bill so I would think there is no more debate to be had.  Veto it and let's get back to real issues such as the $500 million budget short fall that has so far taken a back burner in the Democrat controlled state government.