Community | April 29, 2009 | 18 comments

New Hampshire Senate passes gay-marriage bill

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53S72J20090429?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Image
ClipsFC
CONCORD, New Hampshire (Reuters) - New Hampshire's Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage after an amendment was added that prohibits polygamy and marriage of family members, among other measures.

Governor John Lynch has not indicated whether he will veto the bill, which passed in a 13-11 vote and would make New Hampshire the nation's fifth state where gay marriage is legal. But the Democrat has expressed opposition to the measure.

The bill passed the state's House of Representatives on March 26 but looked set for near certain defeat in the Senate before the amendment, which appeared to mollify some critics in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

The last-minute changes to the legislation would allow clergy to decline to marry homosexual couples and give couples the freedom to either keep the words "bride" and "groom" on marriage licenses, or simply use the word "spouse" instead.

Because the Senate and House passed separate versions they must resolve their differences before the bill can go to the governor, who in 2007 signed a law recognizing same-sex civil unions, making New Hampshire the fourth state to do so.

Lynch has said the word marriage should be reserved for a traditional heterosexual relationship.

Gay marriage made big inroads this month when, in a single week, Iowa and Vermont joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing gay couples to legally wed. On Tuesday, a joint judiciary committee in neighboring Maine's legislature approved a bill to allow same-sex marriage. Maine's House and Senate could vote on the measure as early as next week.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Random,   US Politics,   US News,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Random,  US News,  US Politics,  4 more
  3. recommended by:
    ClipsFC
  4.     
    |

18 comments // New Hampshire Senate passes gay-marriage bill

  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • If marriage between a man and a woman is no longer considered sacred, then, I assume, nothing will be considered sacred. This will open a Pandora's box of "anything goes." A man is contesting his conviction of bigamy for having several wives, because of the hypocrisy. At least he's marrying women, not men, and yet this is considered more abnormal than two guys who want to get hitched. I say, if you're gonna pass these laws, then repeal laws against pedophilia, against bestiality, against incest. I say this half in jest, but at what point will it stop, if ever? When the government becomes our god, will we become like Nazi Germany? Only this time, it will be the christians (catholic and protestant) that will be silenced.

    • 2 years ago
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  
    • unclecharlie:

      Oh please, that's just ridiculousness. Marriage equality has been around in Canada for over 4 years and in Massachusetts almost three years and the sky hasn't fallen in. No one is marrying monkeys and pedophilia is still a crime (as it should be).

      And for the record, Nazi Germany shipped gays and lesbians off on trains to concentration camps where they were tortured, experimented on, and murdered.

      By respecting different people and embracing those differences, our country is moving further from Nazi Germany than closer. Sir, from what I can tell your point a view is far closer to Nazism than the equality movement ever will be.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • Wow gay marriage and medical marijuana are on a roll. Seems like with Obama in the White House the nation is in the middle of a huge progressive revolution.

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
  • uroborus8
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  

    • There was a change in language. That does not affect the actual bill as a tool for gays and lesbians to get married. Clergy has never been overly thrilled about the new laws in any State of the US. That is just something that will be tough to overcome. It puts religion in the spotlight and that is something that the legislations are trying to avoid. Civil marriages can be just as much fun. You can still have a full wedding banquet ; )

    • 2 years ago
  • Freaked2Much
    • 0
      Freaked2Much  

    • True and the only reason this one past was because of the change that clergy can refuse to marry same sex. Also the wording has changed that can be used such as groom-groom, bride-bride etc. Spouse I think is what they settled on. I have not seen the final text of the senate version. This also has to be worked out with the house bill before it goes to Gov. Lynch. But it's progress.

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
  • gh8643
    • 0
      gh8643  

    • Wow seems the North East states are on a roll. Now on to NY which is considering it but facing a lot of opposition from conservatives. Maybe now that more States have adopted new laws this may pass in NY. Go N.H.

    • 2 years ago
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  
    • gh8643:

      NY will be tough even though democrats have a good position in the legislation. There are some strong conservative groups that oppose same sex marriage and have threatened to fight. Luckily Gov. Patterson is on board as is the new Senator from NY in Congress.

    • 2 years ago
  • gh8643
    • 0
      gh8643  
    • gh8643:

      I can't see that NY of all States in this country with a city that has one of the largest gay communities in the world would be the only one on the East Coast not allowing it. I hope pressure will help this time. CT is in too. In Jersey they have very liberal Civil Union laws and I know they had the Supreme Court in Jersey look at the issue but they have not ruled yet.

    • 2 years ago
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  
    • gh8643:

      You are right gh. We are beginning to see a change in demographics. It was once political suicide to support the equality movement, but now it seems those who oppose equality are on the wrong side of history.

    • 2 years ago
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  

    • Yes, great news. Wonder how they are doing in California with the proposition. Anybody heard anything? I also think Iowa was a huge step in the right direction.

    • 2 years ago
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  
    • ClipsFC:

      We are stilling waiting for the Supreme court decision to come down in California. They have until June 3. Rumors abound about the actual day of decision, so in short, we do not know when it will be for sure. We will have one business day's warning prior to the ruling.

    • 2 years ago
  • ssnigg
    • 0
      ssnigg  

    • Yeeehaaa another state. Seems though most of them on East Coast. Now we need California to change that prop 8. Iowa is in, boy this is great news.

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • ssnigg:

      Isn't it sweet irony? Prop 8 may have been the best thing that California could do for the marriage equality movement. Watching people have their rights actually taken away (rather than just not granted) has really opened a lot of eyes and awoken a sleeping giant of straight but compassionate and open-minded Americans who just didn't like to talk about this before. History is often funny like that.

    • 2 years ago
  • uroborus8
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  

    • New Hampshire state Senator Lou D'Allesandro was the only Democrat to side with 10 Republicans against the legislation, which would redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. He cited his "traditional family values."

      Democratic state Senator Deborah Reynolds, who opposed the bill at committee level, changed her vote after the amendment.

      "This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides of this debate and meets our shared goal of equality under state law for all the people of New Hampshire," Reynolds said.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos