California still has its wildfires, but New England now has “gay marriage.” Bills establishing same-sex “marriage” have now been passed by legislatures in five of the six New England states, with the juggernaut somehow missing (so far) only tiny Rhode Island. In Iowa, meanwhile, the state Supreme Court recently struck down a law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman, thus opening the door to same-sex “marriage” in the Corn Belt.

In California, supposedly the home of “progressive” fads and eccentric ideas, voters in last year’s referendum approved a ban on same-sex “marriage.” But in buttoned-down New England, even the Episcopalians, once known as “God’s frozen people,” have warmed up to the idea of “gay marriage.” The Episcopalian Diocese of New Hampshire has backed a bill to establish just that, which is not surprising, since the bishop, V. Gene Robinson, came “out of the closet” and announced his homosexuality six years ago. Robinson, 62, is formerly married and has two daughters. He now lives with his male partner.

Massachusetts passed a “gay marriage” law after its Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state’s constitution required equal marriage opportunities for same-sex couples. Connecticut enacted a law granting either civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples in 2005. But in the past few weeks the “gay marriage” bandwagon has been barreling triumphantly through New England at a dizzying pace. Four days after the Iowa high court ruling, the legislature in Vermont, which had established civil unions for same–sex couples in 2000, overrode Republican Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a “gay” marriage bill. On April 29, the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill to establish marriage “regardless of gender” in the Granite State. On May 6, the legislature in Augusta passed and Gov. John Baldacci immediately signed a bill establishing “gay marriage” Downeast in Maine. Baldacci, a Democrat, had not previously said what he would do with the bill and the Senate vote in favor, 21-13, was not enough to override a veto.

"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

On the same day, the New Hampshire House of Representatives adopted the Senate version of its “regardless of gender” bill sending the measure on its way to the governor’s desk. Gov. John Lynch has yet to say whether he will sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without his signature. Lynch, a Democrat now in his third two-year term as governor, was similarly non-committal two years ago when the legislature was passing the civil unions law, which gives same-sex couples all the legal rights and privileges of marriage without calling it that. He signed that bill, announcing then that he believed the formal title of “marriage” should still be reserved for the kind of union where gender is still regarded.

“I do not support gay marriage and New Hampshire law today prohibits gay marriage,” Lynch said at the time. As recently as last month the governor sounded similarly opposed to same-sex “marriage.” “I think the word marriage is reserved for a marriage between a man and a woman, and I think the real issues really are rights and protections for gay and lesbian couples,” the governor said on April 15th. But this week, Lynch appeared to be wavering.

"I'm going to talk to legislators and I'm going to talk to the people of New Hampshire and ultimately make the best decision I can for the people of New Hampshire," he said on Wednesday evening.

The civil union law the governor signed in 2007 guarantees all the “rights and protections” to same-sex couples that married couples have, including property, child custody and hospital visitation rights. Opponents of the legislation say there is no reason for the governor to change his stand on reserving “the word marriage” for a man-woman union.

“Either he keeps his word and vetoes the bill or he has been misleading the New Hampshire public,” said Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research, a conservative, family-values organization headquartered in Concord. The group has waged a vigorous public relations campaign against the bill, including TV ads highlighting the governor’s past statements on the issue and asking viewers to call the governor and urge him to keep his word.

A popular Democratic governor in a formerly solid-Republican state, Lynch ousted unpopular one-term Republican Craig Benson in 2004. Two years later, New Hampshire Democrats took over both Houses of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, as voter sentiment turned against the Bush administration and Republicans in general. The Democrats continued their hold on the State House through the 2008 elections and Lynch, now in his third two-year term, continues to have approval ratings above 70 percent. Though a Catholic, his “pro-choice” stance on abortion has not noticeably diminished his standing with Catholics in general or with other voters in a state that has consistently elected “pro-choice” legislatures.

Lynch has appealed to conservatives by taking the New Hampshire “pledge” to veto a general sales or income tax (New Hampshire still has neither) and by threatening to veto a bill repealing the state's death penalty. (The repeal was passed by the state House but tabled by the Senate; the state's death penalty remains on the books though no one has been executed in New Hampshire since 1939.)   

Lynch’s decision will almost certainly settle the issue for this session of the legislature. The votes in both the House and Senate were close, so barring a massive switch of votes, there will be no override of a veto. 
The governor’s office has been deluged with cards, e-mails, and phone calls from both sides urging him to sign or veto the bill.

On the eve of the Senate vote, a University of New Hampshire Survey Center released a poll showing 55 percent of New Hampshire residents in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples and 39 percent opposed. The poll, commissioned by the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry coalition, which supports the bill, was a survey of 491 voters. It posed the following question: "Would you support or oppose a law that would allow the state of New Hampshire to issue civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples?"

Opponents say the wording is misleading, since it sounds like a description of the civil union law already on the books. Cornerstone Policy Research released a poll of its own, which the group says is a telephone survey of all 432,398 households in New Hampshire. The survey, done by CC Advertising of Richmond, Virginia, asked: “Do you agree that marriage between one man and one woman should be the only legal definition of marriage in New Hampshire?” Of those responding, 64 percent said “Yes,” CPR announced.

The bill specifically exempts clergy from any requirement to perform same-sex marriages, but a number of religious organizations have opposed it, most notably the state’s Roman Catholic diocese. On Thursday of this week, Bishop John B. McCormack again called on Lynch to veto the bill. The law would result in “many unintended consequences that will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary confusion, litigation and denial of rights to many people in our state,” the bishop said in a statement released from his office. Opponents have said the act would force caterers, florists, photographers, restaurants, reception halls, and other businesses that serve wedding parties to offer their services to same-sex couples or face legal charges and penalties for violating the state’s anti- discrimination statute.

“Short of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there must be adequate protections for churches, but also for individuals who have a genuine conscientious objection to participating in or assisting ceremonies of same-sex couples,” the bishop said.

McCormack made a similar appeal to the governor two years ago over the civil unions bill, which Lynch nonetheless signed. Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester, the only Democrat to oppose the same-sex "marriage" bill in the 13-11 Senate vote, says Lynch has to make up his mind on this bill as well. 

“I hope that he either signs or vetoes it,” D’Allesandro said, when asked about speculation that Lynch may let the bill become law without his signature. “This is one where the governor has got to have a position.”

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

gay Marrage imoral, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Flu-Pig said:

Gay Marriage Immoral? Says who?! Get off your high-horse, Flu-Bird! It's obvious from your statement that you don't know any gay people, yet you talk like an expert on gays' morality. Why should all of America be subjected to your church's definition of morality anyway? I'm fine with you practicing your own religion, but PLEASE do not force it down everyone else's throats! Just because someone is different from you, it doesn't automatically make them immoral!

May 09, 2009

William H Stoddard said:

... "Overwhelmingly"? As a Californian, I remember the vote on Proposition 8 very well; its passage made me ashamed for my state. It passed by about 52% of the vote. That's not what I call a sweeping victory. I suspect that had the vote gone the other way, you would be saying that Proposition 8 had "narrowly failed." The polls were unsure of how things were going right up to the election . . . and with a 52% Yes vote, I think "It could have gone the other way" is plausible. I hope that it WILL go the other way next time around. But if Proposition 8 is repealed by a 52% vote, I expect we'll hear people talking about how closely divided the public is . . . just as they seem to be in New Hampshire currently. [Author's note: The writer is correct. According to the results on the website of the California Secretary of State, Proposition 8, to amend the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, was endorsed by 7,001,084 voters, or 52.3 percent, voting "Yes" and 6,401,482, or 47.7 percent, voting "No." It was a clear majority, but well short of a landslide. I regret the use of the word "overwhelming" and it has been removed from the article. - JK]

May 09, 2009

John VIsser said:

Flu-Bird Shows Obvious Hatred The first poster above, Flu-Bird, shows his obvious hatred of other people in his description of liberals as "hacks" and gays as "imoral" (sic). It is a common practice to use derogatory and demeaning terms to describe your opponents if your position holds no water in the first place.

May 09, 2009

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Kevin Bateman Smith said:

A Survey of 432,398 Households? Let's break this figure down. Let's assume that these pollsters posed only one question to a person on the other end of the phone. This call would take about one-two minutes. This means that CPR has allegedly spent 432,398 minutes on the telephone with people in New Hampshire. This amounts to 7206 hours or more than 300 24-hour days on the phone. Since New Hampshire regulations limit the hours such organizations may call homes to between 8am and 9 pm this would mean that the CPR would need 655 full working days to reach every home in New Hampshire, assuming that somebody picked up the telephone 100% of the time. Obviously, no poll can be successful at gauging the attitudes of the electorate about a certain subject at a certain time if it takes *years* to conduct the poll. Moreover, a benchmark poll with 500 respondents costs between $15,000-$25,000. If we do the math we see that it would cost CPR between $12,988,140 and $21,619,900 to conduct this "poll." As a 501(c)3 non-profit, I *highly* doubt that the CPR's entire operating budget from the 9 years in which they have been extant even approaches these figures. In short, the "poll" cited above is a total crock. Shame on The New American for such shoddy and irresponsible journalism.

May 09, 2009

Harry said:

Separation of Raunch and State! [It's still legal - and always God-honoring - to air messages like the following. (See Ezekiel 3:18-19.) In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the "separation of raunch and state"!] In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big "signs" that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide "sign" (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven't accomplished! Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint - San Andreas - may soon get a big jolt out of what's going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

May 09, 2009

Jon Miranda said:

Gay Marriage Doesn't Satisy Life's Purpose This is the best argument I have heard against gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't satisfy life's purpose It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people. They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.” Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature's laws. If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet. Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race. Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. The husband wife and childrens model isn't perfect but it's the only model that works. States/countries that support any other model will bring catatrophic consequences upon themselves.

May 10, 2009

gay marrage is imoral, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Jesus H. Christ said:

The "Heterosexuals Only" Sign Belongs in the Same Trash Bin as the "Whites Only" Sign... If the USA is ever to be united as one country, we must end any modern equivalent of the odious "Jim Crow" laws in America. Separate is Never Equal. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats exploit and enable varying degrees of mob-driven bigotry; capitulating too often to this hate in the guise of religion. They have allowed to exist this false premise that exclusions from one's birthright of full equality is somehow justifiable in America -- that is, if one does not belong to an "approved" group. But bigotry is never acceptable -- in whatever ugly form it finds personification. And it will never be justifiable as long as the American Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution continues to stand for anything at all. ~ Bud Evans, 2009

May 10, 2009 | url

Thomas Paine said:

Gay Marriage, one more step to eliminate God What is wrong with Gay partnerships. They are working fine. Why must we give Marriage a new definition to include same sex marriage. Gays deserve all their rights. However, we don't need to do this just to push God out of our lives. The NWO atheist, love this progression as God is all that stands in their way.

May 11, 2009

Observer said:

A Point to Consider.... It appears there are a number of people in the gay community who follow these commentaries. If the gays want to share in the heterosexual woes of divorce court, alimony, child custody battles, and legal fees, let them share the wealth! The people who benefit are the lawyers....

May 11, 2009

Mahmud said:

not bad we should do alot of relations with people ...sometimes high friendship betwen girls or boys GAYS...have a nice life..

May 11, 2009 | url

Celeste said:

Stop quoting my marriage! Stop placing my marriage in quotes, you are a jerk for doing so. I could care less if you don't believe in same sex marriage, the fact is you placing it in quotes does not make it any less valid than your own. So get off your high horse and get some perspective you self serving bigot Jack Kenny.

May 13, 2009 | url

Nicholas said:

... As a proud Californian, I cannot wait for our ruling from the Cailfornia Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, as an improper Revision to the Constitution. Equal protection under the law will return to the Golden State. --Nicholas, Sacramento

May 14, 2009 | url

jbs-believer said:

... "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'" —Matthew 19:4 (NKJV) "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" —Mark 10:6 (NKJV) When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome. -Romans 1:26,27 (KJV) The term "sodomy," named after the inhabitants of Sodom whose homosexual perversions caused God to rain fire and brimstone on their city in the days of Abraham (Genesis 19:4,5,12,24), has for thousands of years been synonymous with this unique form of ungodliness. That it is basically a sin of rebellion against God is evident from the above passage in Romans. The “cause” for which God "gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" was that they had decided to "worship and serve creation more than the Creator" (Romans 1:24-25 - KJV). Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called “dogs” in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses. -Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV) We can be sure that, if these practices were abominations to God then, He has not changed His opinion about them today.

May 17, 2009