The Same Sex Marriage Question
Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 08:32AM This past Tuesday was the start of the local election cycle here in NH. Along with various town articles asking for new schools, fire stations and other various buildings there was an article put to vote in 133 different towns across the state. The question was whether or not the people of NH should have a chance to vote on an amendment to the NH Constitution that defines "Marriage". Make no mistake, this is about same sex marriage and the people rejecting what our state law makers have expanded marriage to include.
Of those that have voted so far 50 have passed the article asking for a statewide vote, and the article only failed in 12 towns. 12 other towns have voted to table the question avoiding having to take a stand one way or the other. 67% of NH towns want to be allowed to vote directly on the issue and only 16% voted against wanting direct say on the issue.
In Merrimack, home town of Nancy Elliott, there was an attempt to nullify the article which failed as well as a second attempt to reword the question which also failed so the article will go to the ballot in April as originally written. Of those who spoke, most seemed to have no problem extending rights associated with marriage such as survival benefits, health insurance privileges etc to same sex "unions" but they were against expanding the name "marriage" to include same sex couples.
Now personally I could care less what two people call their relationship. If two men or two women wish to call themselves married or even call themselves hamburgers it doesn't impact me in the least. With our state in a budget hole of around $600 million and the state government is looking to continue increasing taxes as unemployment continues to rise. This is a receipt for disaster which far out weighs what two men or two women call themselves but if you've listened to Democrats or read Democratic web sites such as Blue Hampshire, the same sex marriage issue has been their most talked about issue in the past year. They have made it the focal point of their party.
It is becoming clear that same sex rights be not be the election winner that will distract voters away from all the other problems Democrats created but this may actually turn out to be an election loser for them. People are rejecting it and upset with the idea it was thrust upon them without their say in the matter or over their objections to the matter.
What's also the most telling is that after weeks of coverage of Nancy Elliotts' comments and sites like Blue Hampshire going on for months now about same sex rights there is no coverage to be found in any NH media source or on any of the leading Democratic web sites discussing their recent loses on this issue. Why so silent?
Democrats, same sex marriage in Democrats
Reader Comments (35)
And while Republicans and conservatives love to talk about bedroom activities, Democrats are talking about producing jobs, turning the economy around, more efficient budgeting, streamling government, and providing better education for our kids. Oh, and health care that has the dollars going to giving health care to human beings instead of golden parachutes to insurance company CEOs and salespeople.
Yep, while the Republicans and your conservative friends want to write discrimination into the New Hampshire Constitution, which when people understand that it is taking rights away from their neighbors won't vote for that, Democrats continue to lead the way for common sense.
A lot of people are angry at politics -- and the politics around the marriage equality issue is being spun by Republicans. I think people will remember that at the polls in November. A special thank you from me to you for creating this issue.
Democrats pushed it on this state against the will of the majority and yes Democrats, not republicans spent that time focusing on this issue and created this issue while ignoring the sky rocketing debt and increasing taxes. Democrats, not republicans, control all branches of the NH and federal governments. They've controlled the federal house and senate since the 2006 election and controlled NH's government just as long. So try as you might to claim it's Republicans creating this while ignoring the real issues of taxing and spending... facts say otherwise.
And as for taking rights away from neighbors, I liked that claim by you in the Union Leader and it's going to be the focus of my next article (given the time to write it). You're record is anything but protecting rights of others. You seek to take away the rights of gun owners, you seek to take away individuals rights to choose what foods they can eat and what level of safety they wish on themselves. You support taking away the rights of business owners to choose for themselves which legal activities are allowed in their privately owned establishments. You have a long record of trying to take away the rights of others so why are YOUR rights more important then all of the rest of us who's rights you care less about and show time and time again with your record?
And my "record is anything but protecting rights of others?" Where do you get that, Richard. I "seek to take away the rights of gun owners?" I absolutely do not. I support the 2nd Amendment. I don't want guns in the hands of criminals. Do you?
And I "seek to take away individuals rights to choose what foods they can eat?" Where? When? In your interpretation? You must be an amazingly smart man, or think you are. You talking about the "transfat" bill that Rep. Paul McEachern and I sponsored? If so, what that bill did was ask the State Board of Education to survey what transfats were in the foods of the cafeterias of our school kids. It's a poison, Richard -- and the bill was ahead of its time because by bringing attention to the matter, transfats have been eliminated from many classrooms already. You want to kill our kids, Richard? Even McDonald's has taken transfats out of their processed foods -- and we didn't force them, they did it voluntarily, which was our objective.
And where do I support "taking away the rights of business owners to choose for themselves which legal activities are allowed in their privately owned establishments?" You talking about smoking? Yes, I was one of the leaders way back in the 1970s to prohibit smoking in public buildings. You're welcome. Don't you care who gets lung cancer, Richard? Side-stream smoke kills -- I brought that up in the 1970s, 20 years before people began to really understand that fact and ban smoking in workplaces as well.
I'll stand on my record, Richard -- of being concerned about people, and encouraging government to have an important and meaningful role in protecting our health, and providing for equality for our human beings. You can continue to bash me for that, and I'll say thank you, Richard -- I'm on the side of the people, and I wish you'd join me.
Are YOUR rights more important than all of the rest of us? YOU seem to care less about our rights, and you show that time and time again with your commentaries? I should have every bit the same rights you do -- and with marriage equality (House Bill 436) -- I do. HB 436 didn't take your right away, except your right to take away my rights. Why does that bother you so?
As for thinking people are stupid, it is YOU who are implying that by saying people did not know what the article meant. I listened to the people speaking in different town meetings. Same sex couple stood up and spoke about how defining marriage will discriminate against them, those opposed to same sex marriage stood up and spoke about why marriage should be defined as a man and a women.
I support same sex marriage because as I said it causes me no harm for two men or two women to call themselves married any more then it would for them to call themselves hamburgers. It's a word and that's all.
That said, this issue will NEVER go away until the people of NH have a final say one way or the other or until the government gets out of the business of defining marriage (which is the option I'd prefer). Set up legal rules for people within relationships and leave "marriage" to be defined by whatever faith you practice.
And as for you wanting the same rights I do... you DO have the same rights I do. You and I right now can go to any state in the country and marry a woman. What you want are DIFFERENT rights in that you want to marry another man. Neither of us have that right in all 50 states so its not a right that I have and you don't. Its a DIFFERENT right beyond what you and I both already have.
And I don't want different rights -- I want to be able to marry the person I love if he or she happens to be gay or straight. And I want YOU to have that same right. No more, certainly no less. You're welcome. As I said -- my involvement in politics is to fight against discrimination and for helping people. I'm always ready and willing to help you.
I look forward to your interpretation of my voting record. And when you move to the district I represent, I'll certainly listen to your viewpoints when I vote on behalf of my constituents. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, Independent or Conservative or even Liberal, I'll listen to you. Because YOU are every bit as important as anyone else, and I will fight for your right to allow you to continue to speak your mind. I hope you will continue to fight for my right, too.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html
All that does is create exceptions for religions. There's a HUGE difference there between what I'm suggesting and what that bill actually does. Getting government out of the marriage business altogether and creating religious exceptions are two totally different things.
Perhaps a good article to write would be to take a look at what it means in the eyes of government to be "Married". In government there is more to "marriage" then just love and a ceremony. There are things like survival benefits, ability to share finances etc. Out side of someone saying I want person X to have the legal right to make choices on my behalf should I fall ill and can no longer make such choices and the ability to share finances with that person I can think of no other privileged that should be associated with marriage as far as government is concerned. I think exploring this path will open eyes on both sides of the isle as far as why we even would need or want government "marriage".
Bingo -- we did what you want to do -- we didn't redifine marriages, we just made clear the difference betwen a civil and a religious marriage. That's marriage equality. You're welcome.
Read along -- use your finger to follow it so you won't miss anything:
I. In a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace as commissioned by the state and by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution, or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law; or
II. In a religious ceremony by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, and who resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; or within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state.
The vote for discrimination was defeated in a secret ballot, but the pro-discrimination crowd weren't ready to quit. Since most of the people had already left the meeting because it was the last issue on the ballot, the pro-discrimination group asked for a reconciliation vote. This is a parliamentary manuever that has never been used in the history of our town meeting, at least according to the memory of the oldest resident in attendance. Fortunately, there were enough people with a sense of proportion still in attendance that the reconciliation vote was defeated.
"II. In a religious ceremony by any minister of the gospel"
Are you discriminating against Hindus and Muslims?
I understand Barnes point. The state needs to be out of the marriage business altogether.
They should define "Civil Unions" which are any combination of folks joining together to form a union that mutually benefits each other. Yes the state must define this as there are contract laws to define and enforce.
Marriage on the other hand has religious connotations no matter who performs it. When you say you are married I don't recall anyone saying they are a Civil Marriage or A Religious Marriage they are just "married". That is the deception your particular method is employing and it is disingenuous.
Work Hard Have Fun!
Bob DeMaura
Essentially, we've always had just a civil union between people. Two civilians -- now with passage of House Bill 436 including two same-gendered civilians -- may legally contract with one another. Under our law, and in most other states, other provisions prohibit them from being brother and brother, or brother and sister, or son and daughter, etc., or more than two people.
THEN, they can make the decision whether to have their union recognized by their Church, or religion, in which case they take their further step of having it celebrated that way. OR, they can visit a Justice Of The Peace, or another person allowed in that state to perform the completion of their legal contract.
I, for one, would not want to lead the charge to eliminate the word "marriage" from our state laws altogether. I think you and I can appreciate that if I had done that in House Bill 436 I would have been called all sorts of things! I was attacked enough already, but overcame that and passed HB 436. So, HB 436 really only made clear that essentially we do have civil provisions allowing two people to contact with one another in state law, and that those provisions can be applied to two same-gendered couples as well as two differently-gendered couples. Those couples wishing to go further and have their religious ceremony are not in any way whatever affected by another's marriage.
By the way, has YOUR marriage been affected in any negative way since January 1, 2010? Of course not, so I expect you're a supporter now of marriage for gays and lesbians. Conservatives more often than not want government to stay out of the way of individual rights, but when government is involved -- as it is with legal protections, i.e. marriage licenses, for two people, it should be equal in the way it applies its requirements.
It looks like a good number of voters in towns during the past couple of weeks certainly appreciate that here in New Hampshire, we don't want to discriminate against our neighbors.
For sake of helping you understand my point of view I think it's best we step back... look at "marriage" itself.
What do you get out of "marriage"? I'm asking both from the government legal side and from a religious / personal side.
When I have time I'm going to try to dive deep into this and explore the benefits of "marriage" but right now I unfortunately only have time to toss out the question.
People get many things out of marriage. Beyond the legal benefits -- and gays and lesbians aren't just interested in legal benefits, nor are others who are married -- there is the loving and caring, and the legal commitment that gives one another a feeling of security. Shouldn't gays and lesbians have that as a couple, just as differently-gendered partners do?
So, why doesn't equality make sense to you? When I have time I'm going to try to dive deep into this and explore the benefits of "marriage equality" but right now I unfortunately only have time to toss out the question.
My stance is still that Government should only be involved in contracts of the Union and does not need to be involved in "Relationships" especially when we are using the following to define "marriage":
"gays and lesbians aren't just interested in legal benefits, nor are others who are married -- there is the loving and caring,"
Tell me Jim where in state law does it define "Loving and Caring"? Is that something you want the Government defining? What if Government law defines "loving and caring" as being subservient such as the Sharia laws of the Muslims, will you follow the law?
Bob DeMaura
So, either we discriminate in our state laws, or we decide not to. The law doesn't say anything about "loving and caring." I didn't write that in, but referred to that in my commentary here to point out that gays and lesbians aren't selfish by looking just at benefits -- we're looking for the same equality that others have, and that marriage IS indeed about more than just benefits -- it's about, among other things, rights, responsiblities, and obligations. Perhaps you think we're in it just for money -- for "benefits?" -- some people have said that. The most amazing things were said at the Town Meetings recently -- which by the way showed that here in New Hampshire, most people do indeed support marriage equality!
You can keep bringing up little points here and there to justify "your case," whatever that is. But the question remains: why should we discriminate, under New Hampshire law, against two same-gendered people who might want to share their love and caring together for the rest of their lives as a married couple? And since New Hampshire law does talk about "marriage," that's what had to be amended (to allow same-gendered couples) in other to provide for equality under our state laws. That's what House Bill 436 was all about. That's ALL that House Bill 436 was about. Equality.
"If you want to get someone to sponsor a bill to do away with all state marriage laws I guess you can go to it, but I wouldn't want to be engaged in THAT fight -- abolishing our marriage laws. "
WHY? What difference does it make if the benefits granted by law are taken out of the equation? Does your love for the one your with diminish because "government" did not sanction the union of your love?
What do you get out of being "married"? That's what I'm diving into in my next article and I do hope you'll comment after reading it.
As for your question back to me "So, why doesn't equality make sense to you?" Equality is a myth. No two people are truly equal and no two relationships are equal. For instance, I view marriage as a religious union between two people. Since each religion is different and believes in different things, so are marriages. What my church believes in marriage may be different then whatever faith you belong to believes and thus our marriages we NEVER be equal because our faiths are not equal. Does that mean you're not married in whatever faith you believe in? Of course not. Your free to do as you wish and define your love as you wish. Likewise your entitled to the same benefits I am under the law but that does not make us equal not should it. Your love for men and my love for women is different and there's nothing wrong with it being viewed as different just like a start in basketball and a star in baseball are different and should be viewed as different. Does that mean either are less a star?
You also missed the point of my argument or at least you chose to debate back as if you missed it. You claim that Government is indeed involved in the "Feelings" in a relationship and to that I say Hogwash!
Here's what I propose, remove the word/term "Marriage" or "Married" or any derivative of that word and replace it with "Civil Union" or the appropriate derivative of "Civil Union" to be grammatically correct, in all State Laws.
Now tell me how that has changed anyone's relationship in any way? It hasn't, but it does get the government out of the "Feelings" part of "Marriage" that are better served by the religion of the couples choice. Why, because "Marriage" has religious undertones no matter how you say it or phrase it.
Bob DeMaura
And Richard -- I didn't even use the word "feelings." You're inventing that. It's amazing what the opposition will throw out there to confuse the issue of marriage equality, making it into more of an issue than it is -- that under our laws, we should treat a gay or lesbian union of two people coming together as a couple equally with a straight couple. No more, no less. Equally. In the eyes of New Hampshire law, that union is equal.
That tactic of trying to confuse this issue or make it sound like something to fear because it's more than it appears to be was tried at Town Meetings, and despite that we won the majority of Town Meetings. It was tried last year in efforts to kill HB 436, but we won. We won because in New Hampshire, the majority of people get it -- that it's not our way to discriminate.
Keep trying. I appreciate sparring with you.
I used the word "Feelings" to describe what Jim actually wrote:
"The law doesn't say anything about "loving and caring." I didn't write that in, but referred to that in my commentary here to point out that gays and lesbians aren't selfish by looking just at benefits"
I would put "Loving and Caring" under the category "Feelings" and Government should not be legislating "Feelings" into law.
Bob DeMaura
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of marriage equality. I'm hopeful, though, that in time you will appreciate that we have taken this important step toward treating all of our gay and lesbian New Hampshire citizens who want to share their loving and caring for one another (there's the "feelings" again!) on equal status in law as our straight citizens.
Equality is a wonderful thing. Yes, we're all "different" and no marriage is the same, but under New Hampshire law a marriage between a same-gendered couple is officially recognized equal to a marriage of a differently-gendered couple. What a great thing to celebrate -- and we did it The New Hampshire Way -- lots of discussion, a vote by our people's Legislature, in the open, in public, after several well-attended public hearings.
I thought I've made myself clear in the past... I could care less what two people call themselves and I do not oppose "marriage" for anyone. If two men wish to call themselves married, so be it. Heck if three men wish to call themselves married it does me no harm.
"And Richard -- I didn't even use the word "feelings." You're inventing that. "
Actually it was Bob who used that term, not me.
My comments are only that government should not be the one to sanction marriage. There should be no benefits associated with it and it should be left 100% to churches and individual faiths.
Benefits currently associated with marriage such as survival benefits and ability for someone to make choices for you should something happen to you should apply to any two people who wish to have them. If I get sick I should have just as much a right to pick my sister, son or whoever I wish to make choices on my behalf without having to be "married" to them. It's government involvement that created this problem and increasing it's involvement will only open the door for new problems.