New Hampshire Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Bill

Reuters:

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.

Read the whole story: Reuters

Comments

[CrittersRTasty]

wow, do we really want to get into the business of legislating religion?

[petera63]

Good.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

I guess you didn't read the article, because the reason the bill didn't pass is because gay marriage supporters voted against it due to wording that allows churches not to perform gay weddings. This doesn't alter the fact that a majority in New Hampshire support civil rights, so it's going to happen. These are just political games, but the votes to pass it are there, and it will happen. New Hampshire is a state that has joined the 21st century.

[petera63]

21 century BC

[wndrwrthg]

If a religious organization does not want to participate then that is their fundamental right. Unless the religious institution is catering to secular interests through renting space or some such, they should not be forced to participate.

[Pecola]

Agreed. I support gay marriage, however, if churches chose not to allow these ceremonies, that is their choice. Back when I was a Christian, I cannot imagine my fury if I had been told a gay couple would be married in my church whether I liked it or not. NH may be giving the anti-gay marriage advocates just the ammunition they need to mount an effective defense in the other 44 states.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

I don't even understand why a gay couple would want to be married by an organization which promotes bigotry against them.

Legalizing gay marriage and ensuring civil rights for everyone is too important for the politicians to be playing games like this. Just vote the bill in, New Hampshire.

[platanoman]

Misleading title. PLEASE STOP

[Sensiblebg]

Good call NH

[Cosmic-Zantor]

Did you read the article?

The only reason this didn't pass is because SUPPORTERS of gay marriage objected to language in the bill that permits churches to refrain from performing gay marriages.

What this means is that supporters of gay marriage in New Hampshire outnumber bigots, they simply object to the wording of this specific bill.

Ultimately, gay marriage is going to be legal in New Hampshire, as this is a state not stuck in the stone age.

[WTF1956]

How can the state force a church to anything? What about seperation of church and state? Doesn't it work both ways?

[imsosure]

That's so sweet. . .

[robXdion]

Geez, I dunno, maybe it was all those black voters?

(whispering) . . . .search for a new scapegoat. . . . .

[MrVinegar]

What a great way of trying to inject the false "gay people are racist" meme!

You're pathetic.

[Tanyars5]

Rob I am cracking up. It has to be black homophobia that caused such a vote. You sure President Obama didn't do it?????????

[Cosmic-Zantor]

The headline is a little misleading because it implies there is not support for gay marriage in New Hampshire. If you actually read the article it turns out that this bill failed because gay marriage SUPPORTERS voted against it because of wording in the bill saying churches don't have to perform gay marriages.

Ultimately, I think this bill will pass. New Hampshire will join the 21st century soon enough, and congratulations to them.

[barackobama4prez]

I feel that we are not thinking big enough. We need a constitutional ammendment that says it's illegal to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. We are spending alot of time debating DADT. And we need the debate. But we need an ammendment more, because then DADT is irrelevant.

We need to move now while we have democrats in control, and while the momentum is building in favor of gay rights. We need organizing, advocates and grassroots. We need those with a bully pulpit or a megaphone to USE it to have a conversation with America about why civil rights should be for every American. We cannot wait 8 years on the DOJ or the Prez only to discover that we were the ones we'd been waiting for. The Civil Rights Movement, Women's Suffrage and the Presidential Election of 2008 are but three examples of what can happen when ALL Americans unite and organize for a common cause.

[barackobama4prez]

I mean a FEDERAL Constitutional Ammendment. Reign supreme.

[WTF1956]

I would have thought this was a blue enough state to pass this, kinda of a surprise. But, seriously why can't a gay couple take this to the supreme court like Roe vs. wade? If it truely is discrimination then the court has to rule in their favor.

[PlaceboStudman]

I've been waiting for months for someone to grow the cajones or breasts to take this to SCOTUS

[MedinaM]

It's not about the religion...it's about RIGHTS! If a church, mosque, temple, etc doesn't want to marry a same-sex couple, they shouldn't have to. If they see it fit to write that in the bill, go ahead, but I thought that was already the law. Either way, same-sex couples need to still get the same rights legally.

[reversed]

Clergy were already exempted under the old bill. If I remember correctly, the language proposed by the governor would also allow people merely affiliated with a religious organization to refuse to marry a same-sex couple.

[StevenKeirstead]

A so is it a "conscience clause" that would let town clerks and justices of the peace not pass out licenses if they had a religious objection? That would be going too far to let secular state and town officials discriminate.

[OneEarthling]

What the hell? I thought the whole point is that marriage is a right of an individual... any individual who would otherwise qualify (age, etc), to enter into a marriage contract. Who cares if any, or all, churches object to performing services for any reason. That is their right. The practice of religion allows discrimination... a large part of why it is so Ef.d Up!

Get it done, NH!

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

I'm a gay man and I'm all in favor of allowing any church or religious organization to refuse to marry anyone they don't wish to marry. I thought Catholics already had the right to refuse to marry people who were divorced.

[MedinaM]

They do...as they should. I'm definitely in support of same-sex marriage, but if a church, temple, mosque, etc doesn't want to marry somebody they don't have to. It applies to heterosexual couples already. I know that some places won't marry those of different faiths or like you mentioned some Catholic churches won't marry those that have been divorced.

[WTF1956]

Can't you just take it to court and let the judges make the law?

[jordan3189]

typical whining liberal, I can't get my way, let the judges make law.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

Typical Republican - use ad hominem attacks against someone you don't agree with.

[llisa]

I thought clergy members always had the right to decide whom they would or would not marry. Neither my preacher nor my husband's rabbi would marry us 31 years ago. No biggy. You can always find someone who will.

Let (some) religious leaders be holier-than thou bigots. There will be plenty of officiants who will be happy to perform the ceremony. Just get that law passed1