Fallout from Maine: equality foes emboldened in New Hampshire

[theHandpuppet]

Well, this was to be expected. The homophobic contingent in New Hampshire are now emboldened by the defeat of equality in Maine. I would really like to know how gay marriage has threatened or unsanctified Rep. Ulery's marriage. Does he believe only couples with children should be allowed to marry? How about gay couples with children? How about folks who choose not to have or cannot have kids?

This state by state battle must end up in the SC. We will never attain equality, with all the rights and privileges afforded by federal recognition of our unions, when our civil rights are to be decided state by state via a popular vote. Opponents of equality had their say in Maine, they are fighting us in the District of Columbia (where they threaten to put a vote of our rights on the ballot) and are now plotting in New Hampshire. I can see that opposition to equality is going to be, once again, a platform for the GOP in 2010 and 2012 and there will be Dem candidates who will distance themselves from us as political poison. Some vocal, public support and leadership from the top of the Democratic party would surely be nice right about now, don't you think?

The article below is quite long and I'd suggest it be read in its entirety, as the situation in NH is different than that of Maine. I have hopes the bigots will not be as succesful in NH as they were in Maine but it's damn hard not to be discouraged.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091105/GJNEWS_01/711059674
Fresh on the heels of repeal in Maine, N.H. may reconsider gay marriage

By Adam D. Krauss
[e-mail]
Thursday, November 5, 2009

DOVER — Now that gay marriage has been defeated in Maine, attention again shifts to New Hampshire, where lawmakers say momentum from Tuesday's vote may fuel legislation to repeal the state's law and give voters a say.

Two proposals are being drafted in the N.H. House: One would repeal the law Gov. John Lynch signed in June and re-establish civil unions; the other is a constitutional amendment that would charge voters with deciding if "the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage."

<snipping>
Ulery said opposing gay marriage "doesn't mean people are against gays or lesbians or whatever you want to call that group of individuals." People are free to live with whoever they want, he said, "just don't call it what is between my wife and myself who are raising children."

<snipping>
But with the loss , gay marriage has now been defeated in 31 states.

[jonnyblitz]

1. we're going to be fighting this shit til the day we all die as long

as religious assholes are around.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

2. You got that right.............

And I don't buy this "Oh, its not about hating gays" crap they were spouting yesterday. Its ALL about hating and fearing gays. I'm starting to wonder what kind of world I live in and what year it is.

[Kievan Rus]

4. So true...superstition is a very powerful foe

But in the end, we will still triumph. The social conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. They can delay progress but not prevent it.

[Florida Blue]

3. I don't think it could pass in this current Court

Individual States might be the best chance. Maybe I shall write President Snow for her opinions. Ah, hell that won't work. It didn't have a "trigger clause".

[theHandpuppet]

5. Here's another article

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05marriage.html

[Jennicut]

6. NH may be worse then Maine....all the crazies in New Enland live there, including my father in law!

Seriously, his views are nutty.

[Shallah Kali]

7. What next - does Ulery want to limit marriage to fertile couples? Will they have to produce a child

before being allowed to marry or will they withdraw the marriage license if a child is not produced in a certain time period?

I wonder would it be possible to start a ballot measure to change the word marriage to civil union since it is so all fired sacred to twits like Ulery. Civil Unions for everyone and those who want religion can go to their clergy for the religious stuff. After all can the deeply religious really consider city hall marriages or marriages performed with clergy not of their faith & sect *real* marriages? This will spare the poor delicate things the pain of having their Catholic or fundamentalist Evangelical marriage considered the equal of a *gasp* Unitarian or one performed by a civil servant :P