YOUR COMMENTS

Opinions like these are thankfully shrinking in number. Gay couples are part of this "social fabric." We adopt the kids that heterosexuals couldn't handle.
- Matt, Baltimore

Lower the divorce rate.... don't get married!!!
- Ann, Manchester, NH

Gatsas is too busy pushing insurance mandates causing the costs to skyrocket because he did not want to spend 20 minutes a day on a treadmill, so he pushed legislation that mandated bariatric surgery. He is out of touch and should be relegated to the dustbin of yesterday.
- Will, Manchester

How can you the people claim to be against Gay Marriage when it does not impact your life at all. I find through out my alliance with the gay society it is not about shoving their opinions or sexuality down our throats, its about respect for the people. We are all people right? Whether we like same or opposite sex, individually we are all the same. Why...just because others find love in someone that is of the same sex is it considered to be wrong? Why would they not be granted the same right of marriage as us(heterosexuals)?

Say, if marriage was about reproduction and same sex marriage can not reproduce why is this such a bad idea? The world around us is already over-populated. Let's open our doors, they already are. What more would it be just to give them a certificate and rightfully call them wife to wife or husband to husband?

Point being, they will continue to accept who they are, which is how everyone should be raised to think. We are who we are. If we are a homosexual, they accept that, as should everyone else. It does not matter if you think it right or disturbing, its not your life. Sorry to be the barrier of bad news.

Continue with yours as they continue with theirs, grant them the right to same sex marriage. It's still a rebellion now because we the people can not fully accept same sex relationships. Once we do, did you ever think.... maybe they wont be "shoving" it down our throats anymore. There is no logical explanation to keeping the homosexual population away from the right to marry, grant it to them!
- RS, Manchester

As a longtime resident of Connecticut I was quite surprised about the reaction to the recent ruling of our Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of discriminating against same sex couples. As a reminder, the issue is the same one that is before the New Hampshire legislature. Except for the usual agents of intolerance (which are a minority in my home state), everyone appeared to be flipping to more interesting news. Maybe we got used to the fact that marriage is alive and well in our neighbor to the north. Maybe we are just fair and reasonable people. Maybe it's something in the drinking water. I just don't know.

If it hadn't been for robo-calls from the so-called National Organization for Marriage (actually a semi-national organization against marriage equality), I would have been oblivious to the fact that our legislature is revising statutory law to bring it into compliance with the court ruling. This is such a no-brainer that it's below the radar screen for most people in Connecticut.

What's the take-home message for the people of New Hampshire? Almost all of your immediate neighbors (Massachusetts, Vermont, Canada), and one with whom you don't share a state line (Connecticut), have done the experiment and have come to like it (O.K., Vermont has yet to convert civil unions to marriages but this will happen in a couple of months). Do you want Maine to beat the "Live Free or Die" state to the finish line? I don't think so but that's of course your call.
- Wolf Reiter, Mansfield, CT

Marriage = 1man +1woman TRADITION : ) Civil Union = 1man +1man or 1 woman + 1 woman or 1man + 1 woman Are you lacking the rights you feel are warranted? Then argue for Federal Rights, not the right to call your union a marriage. That will not get you recognized by other states, nor will it change Federal law. Please leave NH marriage alone.
- marie, manchester

To be against gay marriage is to discriminate against the only people to which the subject should matter. If you're not gay, and not planning to enter into a gay marriage, what right do you have to hold a contrary opinion that seeks to exclude other people from the same rights you have? And of course polls show that the majority of Americans are against it because the majority of Americans are not gay and apparently are not interested in the rights of others unlike themselves. I am a happily married heterosexual and I find no offense to my marriage based on what other people do, whether it be two gay people wanting to get married or two heterosexual people who want to get divorced. Live free or die, right? Isn't that our motto in this state?
- Scott Nickerson, NH

Most of the arguments being presented have nothing to do with civil marriage or the legislation being discussed. The simple fact is that solid relationships of any kind are in the best interests of the state, and "separate but equal" has proven itself to be anything but equal. There are two possible solutions: 1) the state can exit the marriage business altogether, and every "marriage" will be considered a "civil union" (this is what the U.K. has done), leaving the definition of marriage to be defined by religious institutions. This means heterosexual couples would be, in the eyes of the state, in a civil union (as would homosexual couples) and couples from other states would no longer be recognized as "married", but as in civil partnerships. This is fine as long as all groups are treated equitably.

The other option is to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples, which again, would solve the question. As our neighbors in Vermont have decided, this is the easier option, and New Hampshire's legislators should decide the same way.
- Dan, Belmont, NH

For 5,000 or so years of recorded history, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Despite the fact that homosexual behavior was common during the Roman Empire, gay marriage was never santioned. This is, therefore, a totally new concept, one which would have been completely unthinkable a mere 30 years ago. If one looks at who the primary sponsors and supporters of such legislation are, one will notice that they fall into two categories: the gay people themselves, who obviously have a vested interest, and the college-educated under 30 crowd, whose values have been shaped mostly by television (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm in my forties). Most of these "hope and change" kids cannot, acording to many published surveys, find the U.S. on a world globe, place the Civil War in the correct half century, name the last 5 Presidents or other such tasks which would establish their knowledge of human civilization. To paraphrase Churchill "If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you're in your forties, you have no BRAIN". But, alas, I don't suppose most of the under 30, pro gay marriage kids know who Churchill was...or care.
- mo, derry

The first teachers, that children
have in life, are the parents who
raise them.
The parents, are the roll models,
and pattern, by which children will
be guided by in their own lives.
Granted, there are many gay
couples raising children today.
The most important question is:
What kind of pattern, and roll model,
Gay parents make for the children
they raise, irregardless of how
much or how little they love those
children.
- Gary, Gramarcy, Louisiana

Gays can call themselves 'married' if they want to. They can even go to an Episcopal 'church' and get 'married' by a priest. But what they cannot do, with or without a law, if force the rest of us to accept their lifestyle as moral.

I find it troubling that companies can fire employees for heterosexual adultery or even looking at pornography but not for all types of homosexual deviance. That all schools can must teach that homosexuality is acceptable behavior but cannot promote prayer or Sunday school attendance, behaviors that are proven to promote well being amongst youngsters.

The ‘equality’ they are seeking is really to be more equal than heterosexuals and polygamists. Welcome to the ‘Animal Farm.’
- Jim, Manchester

Tricia - it seems to me that God's plan includes all this gay marriage stuff. Otherwise, how could it be happening?


"Any self-respecting post-modernist will have to admit that religion is a construct."

- Fixed.
- DM, Hampton

I contacted my NH Senate Rep, Ted Gatsas about this subject. He will be voting against gay marriage. That is unfortunate. To me, he is voting to discriminate agaist one group of people. I voted for him in the past, but if he votes against this bill to allow gay folks the right to marry, he will never receive another vote from me again...whether it be a state rep vote or an aldermatic run. Voting for discrimination is not why I supported him in the past. Same goes for Gov. Lynch. I voted for him, but he will lose my vote if he vetos this bill.
- District 16 Resident, Manchester

In this debate, each side comes to the table with certain assumptions. Many who are in favor of same-sex marriage likely believe that homosexuality is biologically hard-wired. So, for them, it stands to reason that not allowing people to marry due to a biological factor is discriminatory (witness analogies to in interracial marriages). But this belief is predicated on an ever-changing conventional wisdom and not on science.

Even the unabashedly pro-homosexual American Psychological Association admits on its website, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." It then concludes, "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In other words, those who identify as gay do so because they believe that they are; there is no empirical proof that they are inherently gay. Any self-respecting post-modernist will have to admit that sexual orientation is a construct.

So the question is not one of discrimination. Rather, it is one of whether the state supporting homosexual marriage is in our collective best interest.
- CW, Fairfax, VA

I don't ask my neighbors to change their beliefs. Civil marriage is granted by the state, not God. Our laws protect religion, there will never be a day when religions are forced to accept what they do not agree with. All I ask for myself is the same respect.

I found the person who I want to be with for the rest of my life and we have been together almost 15 years now. When I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer called pheochromocytoma Ray was there for me. I am not sure how things would have turned out if he weren't by my side. Our relationship has stood the test of time and trial. Why should we have to call our marriage by another name? What is the public good that comes of it?

It seems to me people want to say that separate but equal is OK. I thought we already determined that is was not. If we do not apply what we have learned in the past we will be living in it. I hope the "Live Free or Die" state remembers that the least of it's people are still as equal as the rest in the eyes of the law no matter their form of self expression, beliefs or life decisions.

My life is tough enough thanks to people who don't like me because I am what I am. I don't need my government to help perpetuate that pain by sanctioning bigotry by continuing to deny my equal rights.
- John Hosty-Grinnell, Both Salem NH and MA

People, this is a civilization we are protecting, not a college campus. Heterosexual marriage is the only way in which the human race can perpetuate itself with full congruence between the biological and emotional links between offspring. Those who argue for gay "marriage" forget that "alternative" family units predate monogamous marriage, and all were found wanting. The state has no interest in whether two people love each other except in how this best enables society to continue.
- D Minnich, Media PA

What we are witnessing here is an organized, cynical country-wide "judicial hijack" of a core social value, exploiting the fact that the American middle class is too worried and confused by the catastrophic economy to defend its rights. The timing of the NH bill is outrageous. This cynicism does not disturb the strong and politically ascendant gay rights lobby.
To cap it off, the angry left netroots have mastered their script of casting heartland America as bigoted gay-haters because they won't give away every value they hold dear.
Marriage matters. And its definition matters. Marriage is not to blame here. There are many classes of people who cannot marry, not just the obvious one of gender. A woman cannot marry her father or brother. Chlldren cannot marry adults or one another. You cannot marry soley to get an alien card. You cannot marry if you are already married. You cannot marry an animal, a plant or a rock. You cannot marry someone against their will. The list goes on. Every party on this list could lobby government that they are discriminated against by the definition of marriage. Why should gays be the only ones to get the benefits of "no rules" marriage? There is no logical answer to that argument.
The truth is that this is not a movement to broaden marriage. It's intentional underhand purpose is to destroy what marriage represents to the socially conservatve heart of America. Gays hate conservatives. But they like to pretend it is the other way around. If you read these comments, you will see where the hating is coming from. I wish it wasn't that way.
- S Tavanyar, Nashua

The 'conservative' movement seems to be facing a bit of hypocrisy at the moment. On the one hand, they profess that government intervention into the private lives of citizens is necesarily bad. On the other hand, they fully embrace such intervention when it agrees with their ideology.

The point has been made before, but I'll make it again: marriage need not make kids, and and kids need not come from marriage. Divorcees, illegitimate children, sterile individuals are all allowed to marry, but with the exceptions of four states, they must marry to someone of the opposite sex, or else not marry at all.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is how overpopulated the world is becoming, particularly in impoverished parts of the world that aren't nearly as fortunate as most of us here in the States are. If a same-sex couple does not wish to have assistance in producing a child, then why should they not adopt a boy or girl from one of the many orphanages around the world, and give that child a home and a loving family?

For those who would say that the will of the majority of the people is being tossed aside, and unelected judges are imposing their will on the people, I would remind them that judges are appointed for the express purpose of interpreting the law, and if the law is unjust, then their duty is to void it. Slavery and segregation were once the norm, willed into being by the majority. As was discrimination against women. The majority of Americans believed that these people were not as equal as they were, but they were wrong, and the courts (not to mention a Civil War) placed their bigotry out in the open for what it was (and sadly, in some cases, still is).

Marriage has not always existed; it is a tradition that has come about in most societies through religion of some sort or another. The contract of marriage that our governments recognize is a civil contract, not a religious one. If we are to have equal protection under the law for all people in this country, then gay and lesbian couples must be given the right to marry.
- Jonathan, Chevy Chase, MD

What a shameful article. I wonder, what are conservatives afraid of? Don't they recognize the right of every individual to be free and equal under the law? Fortunately, social progress will not be stopped. Marriage equality will come to NH sooner or later, if not this year in two years.
- Alex Honeker, Oxford, MS

I don't live in NH, but I do have a fondness for the place. I have lots of family in the Merrimack Valley and I remember lots of Christmases and summers in the area. Thank you, Governor Lynch, for opposing homosexual marriage. I understand it takes some courage as a Democrat. Your fellow northeastern Democrats like Paterson and Corzine support it, and I understand you're under a lot of pressure. I'm a young man, and my opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with religion. I ask all Granite Staters to look at who is really behind the homosexual effort. It's the same people who harassed law-abiding citizens after the Prop 8 passage in California. It's the same people who want to destroy the traditional family everywhere, including radical feminists. They HATE the family. They want to force five year olds to learn about "Two Mommies" and "Two Daddies."

Society does not really have an interest in promoting homosexual marriage, because homosexuals can't have children. This doesn't mean gays shouldn't have rights, and civil unions are ok. But the libertarian streak of NH applies to letting gays be, not sanctioning their relationships as equall to straight ones. They aren't. And thankfully, John Lynch is representing his state well. The question is - is the wholesome New Hampshire of my youth gone now? Is there anyone willing to save it?

Gov. Lynch is.
- Jerry, Brooklyn, NY

Dan from Fancestown: You are less "deserving" (your word not mine) because of the actions you take (note: not the color of your skin or some other difference). You have sex with another man. (You are a homosexual, sex is part of the word, correct?) You can have sex with another man all you want (I don't care) you just can't get married.

Hank
- Hank, Portsmouth

I haven't seen a dictionary yet that describes marriage as a union between two members of the same sex. One man One woman, just like God planned it.

Gays/Lesbians have civil unions, isn't that enough?
- Tricia, Lebanon

This disgusting screed reveals just how far some people still have to go in order to understand that their gay neighbors and acquaintances are human beings, every bit as deserving of the equal protection of the laws as are heterosexuals.

Four states now permit gay marriage -- Massachusetts (where gay marriage has been legal for six years now), Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. The roof has not collapsed in any of these states. Heterosexual, married couples are in no ways impacted by the existence of gay marriages in their midst. Churches cannot be forced to conduct marriages (gay or straight) that violate their religious tenets (the hard right lied about this issue in California, insisting that churches would be forced to marry gay couples; the gay community was WINNING the struggle to prevent Proposition 8 from being passed until the Mormons flooded the state with $19 million at the last moment, outspending the gay community and producing advertisements that lied about this issue up and down the state).

No heterosexual person will suffer in any way should his or her gay next door neighbor get married to his or her long-time companion. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution; however, the state concerns itself only with the civil definition and recognition of marriage, leaving churches free to decide whether or not to perform marriages. Some churches flatly refuse to marry persons who are divorced. Some churches on the hard right still refuse to marry interracial couples. The state may not, and does not, meddle in ecclesiastical matters; and the church may not meddle in affairs of state.

Families today are very different from families of a hundred years ago. Whereas marriage was once the primary vehicle whereby procreation was ensured, the link between procreation and marriage has largely been broken. Whether this is desirable or not is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with the debate about gay marriage. We do not prevent heterosexuals who are unable to have children from marrying, nor do we prevent elderly persons from marrying. To argue that the recognition of gay marriage would in some manner vitiate the procreative aspects of marriage is naive and totally incorrect. Marriage is as much about expressing love, commitment, and a desire to pass through life together with one's spouse as it is ever about brining up children. Furthermore, many gay couples now choose to have children, usually using assisted reproductive techniques. To deny marriage to such couples is to deny the stability of this institution to children raised by such couples.

In short, the writer of this disgusting column needs to focus on the real world, not on quaint and anachronistic considerations that no longer have a place in our society. With the passage of time, America is slowly becoming a fairer place that recognizes that the words "equal justice under law" are more than a mere aspiration; they are a benchmark against which society judges itself, and against which our children will one day judge us.

PHILIP CHANDLER
- Philip Chandler, Clevedon, UK

This article does a great job conflating state and religious assumptions about the institution of marriage, and in fact, has it backwards. The government needs marriage more than marriage needs the state. The state registers marriage for its own survival: taxes, population, and general control of its citizens, etc., not because it has an inherent commitment to the survival of the species. Species survival can be accomplished without the institution of marriage. GIven that, those who believe that marriage can also be between members of the same sex also believe that the state, as a secular body, needs to confer the exact same rights on those couples. That's all there is to it. In instances where such state rights are confered, it doesn't matter what it's called and the fight over lingo is a political issue,certainly not a moral one.
- MIr, Chicago, IL

"Marriage is a highly regulated priviledge, not a "right." Says Vincent from the suburbs of NYC. Regulated like medicinal marijuana? Do go on, we are all listening.
- Dorothy, Concord

The truth is that most conservatives don't want children "being influenced" by the fact that both of their parents are male or female. It might cause them to be gay. So what. As for the poster who wrote about them wanting to raise children and needing the other sex to do so, guess you didn't think about the possibility of adoption now did you.
- Terry A, Keene Nh

This article directly contradicts the basis of our state of New Hampshire, "Live free or Die".
New Hampshire is the only state that has found reasons not to require people to buckle up or to wear helmets. While we are a conservative state, we consider our rights first and foremost.
To not allow gays to marry is to take a step back into a previous generation. To not recognize the rights of homosexual couples in equality to heterosexual couples is indeed an act of bigotry.

This is not a case of defending the human race. The author is completely ignorant in the idea that the human race depends on marriage. I see several illegitimate children who, for some god-forsaken reason, are still able to reproduce. Marriage and reproduction, i.e, the preservation of the human race, do not go hand-in-hand.
The author is also wrong in the belief that Marriage is strictly the union between a man and a woman. This definition was created in religious texts, which have already been defied. If we are to abide by the definition of marriage as described by religious texts, then marriage between peoples of different race, and illegitimate children, are all invalid and completely soil the foundation of marriage.

New Hampshire, take a look at yourself. We are the state of freedoms. While we may have conservative roots, I hope we also have forward thinking minds that are able to correctly comprehend the culture and society of today. If we do not support this bill, we are not supporting the very foundation of our own state.
We put up enough fuss about not wearing seat belts.
What would you do if someone forced you to buckle up, New Hampshire?
- Christi W., Moutlonborough

As a 30-something year old, I think what a lot of anti-gay marriage advocates are missing is the fact that the younger generations don't agree with your anti-gay marriage appeal.

The difference is most of us have gay/lesbian friends or family members and personally know gay/lesbian couples. That personal knowledge would not allow most of us to feel comfortable telling them that their rights are lesser than our own.

I believe that the government, state and federal, should recognize civil unions *only* for the purposes of civil rights and that marriage should be a discinction used by religious organizations only, thus being *completely* separate.
- Brenda, Manchester

What really gets me is that the same arguments against gay marriage were used against mixed race marriages. It will ruin Marriage, it makes a mockery of marriage. The Rev who comments earlier is correct, most hetrosexuals marriages do end in divorce, who is making a mockery of marriage now? I am married and have been for 14 years, I have 4 wonderful children, some born our of wedlock, GASP!, and some born in wedlock, PHEW!, should I toss those children that were born our of wedlock away as they are not legit. Please people, get real. Gay marriage will not hurt anyone, it will not end the world as we know it. It will allow all people to have the same rights as others.
- Mike C, Nashua NH

Joe McQuaid and the Union Leader are wrong to support discriminating against gay and lesbian people. Obstrucing gay and lesbian people from the right to marry is just plain wrong.

But one thing New Hampshire should be very proud of about Joe McQuaid and the Union Leader is that they do provide an equal forum for everyone to comment. They have always been very fair about that, and their willingness to provide a forum for dissenting views goes back to Bill Loeb.

Everyone should write, especially people who want to end the injustice of discrimination that the Union Leader and Joe McQuaid adovcate.

And thank you to the UL for letting all voices be heard.

But you are wrong, wrong, wrong! People who agree that they are wrong should say so.

Everyone should pick up a pen or a keyboard!
- Bob Jean, Northwood, NH

Marriage is the word our culture uses to announce that two people are committing themselves to love and support each other, and to form their own family unit. To deny this label, or to give it some other name, is to deny about one tenth of our population, our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers, the recognition and respect that the majority of the population takes for granted. To deny them this societal blessing, is just one more way of saying "you are less than worthy", as the majority historically has said to the minority, because it makes them feel more worthy. Fortunately, many of the majority do not subscribe to this form of ignorance, Joe McQuaid; and I hope that our Governor will prove himself to be one of those.
- Kathryn, Exeter

It is long overdue for NH to embrace gay marriage. As the Iowa ruling demonstrates this is not simply and east coast / west coast trend; it's country and world wide. I will be very disappointed to find that Governor Lynch becomes the roadblock to going forward with gay marriage for NH. It's time for him to display true leadership.
- ed, londonderry

Conservatives who fail to rally to the defense of the traditional family are consigning themselves to political extinction. The traditional nuclear family is, in Robert George’s phrase, “the original and best department of health, education and welfare.” The ideal of limited government cannot be maintained where the institution of marriage collapses and traditional families fail to form or easily fall apart. “Where these things happen,” he says, “the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone – and that someone will sooner or later be the government. ... If we want limited government, and a level of taxation that is not unduly burdensome, we need healthy institutions of civil society, beginning with a flourishing marriage culture supporting family formation and preservation.” I should think conservatives would realize that as successive generations become more and more dependent on government programs, the percentage of liberal voters will grow as well. Without restoring the traditional, two-parent family to a central position in American life, political and economic conservatism have no future.
- Mark, Bow

The criticism lodged against the gay rights movement is that it wants special rights. It doesn't. It just wants equal rights, including the right for every citizen to marry the one they love. It's the religious institutions that want special rights, namely the right not to be bound by the constitutional demand for fair and equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a civil issue, pure and simple. Religions can keep their holy matrimonies to themselves, but marriage is a legal institution owned and operated by the states.
- Dom, Weare

Marriage should not be state sanctioned for anyone. The government should nudge people to have less kids, not more. As such, people shouldn't get tax breaks for being married or earned income credits and such, in the first place. If anything they should have to pay extra tax for the extra burden they put on resources.
- DM, Hampton

So marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. I should tell my straight friend that has been married 3 times that.
It (marriage) is for the procreation of children. I should also tell my friends that have had children out of wed lock that their children don't count.
C'mon folks get real. Marriage today is at best a life time commitment, at worse it just another farce.
I come from a family of five. It is made up of 2 Women and 3 men. Out of the 5 of us only one is till in their original marriage. 4 of us have divorced. Out of that 4, one has remarried and is still married some 15 plus years later.
When I divorced, I also stopped denying who I am. I have been in the same commited relationship with the same man for over 13 years. I consider my siblings and myself normal.
I have a raised a daughter to be a productive member of society who supports herself and has had no children out of wedlock.
My partner has raised a son who is equally productive. He is also married and has 3 children. The oldest two grand children love their two Grampies. The third is too young to notice anything at this point.
My partner and I have owned two different homes in Manchester, improving both before re-selling to more traditonal families.
We pay our taxes, both Federal and what few there are to the state.
If you saw either of us singularly on the street you wouldn't know from looking at either of us that we are gay. Even if you saw us together walking down the street, you would still have no idea.
So explain to me the fear. Explain to me the threat that I pose.
Explain it logically without hyperbole, without irrational arguments. Explain it to me without using myths, stories and half truths.
Explain to me why my efforts in my life are anyless important than the married man or couple.
Tell me why I am less deserving of the same equalities of married couple.
- Dan, Francestown

Is this really what the Union Leader considers to be front page news? The opinion section should remain where the opinions are. Purposely leading readers to some article written by a clearly conservative southern man instead of publishing an opinion by someone who actually lives in our state. Murchison doesn't even have a solid enough argument to leave it at that, he brings up Roe-v-Wade just to spark up more controversy. The issue of abortion and gay marriage are mutually exclusive. He is even condescending "sorry ladies, sorry gents" writing the article as if his deluded opinion is fact? I feel sorry for the editors of the Union Leader as they slowly lose readers to less conservative and less pompous papers. Next time I would at least love to read an opinion actually penned by a New Hampshire resident.
- Brianna, Manchester, NH

How many people actually live out the traditional marriage? Both of my parents moved on to new spouses - my father has had four. Is this type of behavior what constitutes the word traditional?
It seems to me to be an excuse to bash something that is not the fabricated Beaver Cleaver model that was created post WWII.
Anybody who maintains a long term relationship that is based on love, responsibility and commitment deserves to legalize their choice and be commended for it regardless of who their partner is. It is a myth to say that all men and women will be good parents and partners when they choose the traditional route of marriage and the nuclear family. Nobody can predetermine the destiny of any family - wouldn't that be wonderful? I'm disappointed with the governor's choice when I support so many other decisions that he has made. I am also disappointed with the editor's pontificating about his personal views in such a condescending fashion. His family is clearly part of a perfect mold.
It's amazing and unfortunate how many people choose to be judge and jury when it comes to the living of other people's lives.
- joco, manchester,nh

NH should legalize gay marriage if for no other reason than it is great fun to watch the right wing having apoplexy over something that makes so little difference to anyone except gays who wish to marry. Without this issue to tilt against the GOP might actually form itself into a viable political party again--something that would be bad for all of us.
- LJC, Manchester

Here's a thought. When the pro gay posters mention raising a family is all about love, exactly how does that family come to be? If it is a lesbian family, than they NEED a man to make it happen. If it is two gay men who wish to have a family, then they NEED a woman.
It's ironic they want it both ways. Lesbians obviously don't want to be with a man, but they sure don't mind the fruit of his labor, where as men need the egg of a woman, not to mention her body to nurture it to birth. Hypocrites.
- DF, Candia

Affording gay people equal marriage rights will destroy society as we know it. That's what you want us to tell our state senators? No thanks. I'll be asking my senator to reject the fear and hate mongering of the Union Leader and to support treating our gay and lesbian citizens as the equal citizens they are.
- Dan, Manchester

Problem is...if you redefine marriage to include gay people, or polygamists, or anything other than male-female union, the government will then begin teaching to our kindergarten classes that these perversions are on equal footing to traditional marriage. the government will take away tax exemptions from churches, synagogues, parochial schools, etc. for being "discriminating bigots" against gay people simply for teaching/promoting the traditional definition of marriage. redefining marriage will affect how we raise our children and will negatively impact our religious liberties to conduct our religion and raise our children as we believe morally correct. our nation's soul is truly at stake.
- Chris, Falls Church, VA

In the editoral it states "This issue is not about establishing "equal rights'' for a minority. It is about protecting the human species by recognizing and honoring that special compact."
Let me first address this.
The whole idea and fact base arguement of Equality is alive and well. To have outlandish- ill stated arguements only shows a lack when it comes to this issue.
Gay men and women deserve equal rights, equality in Marriage,family,estates,planning,laws to protect their relationships as anyone.

*half of all American traidtional marriages end in divorce..,yet my partner and I have been in a relationship of love,joy, and peace for 15 years now.
We have out lived most hetro marriages- and are just as in love as when we met.
The idea that same sex marriage would cause traditional marriages to fail is hog wash. As a Pastor- who happens to be gay, I find that most hetro marriages end due to financial arguements more and more.
So why people keep bashing gay men and women is beyond me.
Simply put, we are Americans. We serve our country,We celebrate life,LIBERTY and FREEDOM.. oh did I say LIFE?
We are no differant than hetro's, in that equality is for everyone not just some.
Email me,Id love to talk further on this issue.
www.hourforum.net
- Rev.Robert Christian, Seattle,Washington

So far no one has proven to me that my marriage, or anyone else's, will be destroyed if gay people are allowed to marry and enjoy the legal and social benefits of marriage.
- Bob Kroepel, New Durham, NH

"They are about forcing society to embrace and give positive reinforcement to their lifestyle and agenda in our schools and in every other area of public life imaginable."

I could not agree more! I have a different view on this than all posting on this blog.

I am the ex wife of a gay man. After 10 years of marriage and 2 kids he came out of the closet..... it just about killed me!

Now when I am family events (for the sake of my kids) my ex and his boyfriend are CONSTANTLY shoving their life style down everyones throat! The married couples within the family don't feel the need to be all over each other at events yet these 2 do! Example of selfishness!

Gay marriage is simple about SHOVING their life style down our throat.

Civil union is good enough. Stay strong Gov! You are doing the right thing!
- Jill, Manchester

To all the Liberal activists, especially ones in public office. Keep craming this agenda down our throats, and next election you may find yourselves on the outside looking in.

Civil Unions are one thing, and I have no problem with that, as just about everybody does. That language paints a wide swath for any couple, regardless of same or different sex.

Now who's really behind all this Gay Marriage, what group has the most vested interest in this opportunity - have you figured it out yet????

LAWYERS!!!!!, get real people, the 50/5 (50% don't make 5 years in marriage) statistic plays in. The legal system just found an opportunity to increase business with divorce, alimony, custody, etc......, you all know the drill.
- Peter, Laconia

It's decision time for NH Republicans!

This is a bellweather issue for NH and will define perceptions of the Republican Party here for a generation. NH Republicans are about to decide which strain of conservatism will own their future. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Will the party lurch toward southern religious fanaticism, feeding off ignorance, bathed in bigotry and fear? Or will the Republican Party reaffirm its roots in NH as a lover of freedom and individual rights?

It's both fitting and telling that the article Mr. McQuaid references is born of the south. Perhaps he couldn't point us at a more local perspective because it's just not how most of us define the role of government up here.

I'm on the edge of my seat. I desparately want a Republican Party that I can support, but my libertarian sensibilities continue to be crushed by what the national party has become.

I am hopeful. But make make no mistake. This is a battle over the future of the Republican Party in our great state of New Hampshire. An entire generation is watching to see how it turns out. Choose wisely!
- Jiim, Portsmouth

The "ham sandwich" line has got to be the dumbest argument I've heard so far against gay marriage. No one is going to call a basketball a frisbee, but some definitions of words have, in fact, changed over time to accommodate evolving social mores. The word "citizen" comes to mind. Even "marriage" doesn't mean today what it meant in ancient times, when it was a transaction between two families with the purpose of concentrating wealth and property in a line. We've come a long way since that, thank God.

And if redefining "ham" means more people get to enjoy it, I'm all for that, too.
- Brendan, Knoxville, TN

My sister married a homosexual man. He was smart and funny but put Sharon through hell. He could not keep his hands off boys.
If you go to Nantucket you will see powerful rich men with their boy friends. Homosexuality has more to do with displaying power then even craziness.
The biggest problem with marriage has to do with the kids. I can not imagine being raised by Fletcher or one of the German power men. Why anyone would want to subject children to that is beyond me.
We need to vote these irresponsible thoughtless people out of office.
- Doug Butler, Hollis NH

Gotta love you simpletons and your religion
- Shaun, Manchester

The argument that this is a civil rights question is being swallowed by unwitting dupes like many of those commenting on this article. This has absolutely no relationship to civil rights. Gay people can get married like anyone else to a person of the opposite sex. That is what society has defined as marriage. There is nothing in society that gay people are prohibited from doing that relates to civil rights - there is no employment discrimination, legal segregation, prohibition on freedom of association, etc. Gay people are NOT being denied civil rights, and the gay lobby knows that. It's just that equating the right to have the state call a same sex relationship "marriage" to the civil rights struggle of people who happen to have black skin is an argument dredged up by the legions of "gay rights" proponents, scholars, and activists that they believe will resonate with the judicial branch of our state governments. If you believe that the state should call same sex relationships "marriages," that's your prerogative. However, please don't be fooled into thinking this is some sort of titanic civil rights issue. Our society, as the entire world for the past 3000 years, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is related to the ability to procreate and raise families in a civilized society. While there are problems with this institution - high divorce rate, artificial means of insemination, etc. - it is a working societal institution that has been proven throughout history as the best organizational elements of health societies. Gay marriage proponents don't simply want "civil rights" as defined, or they would be fine with civil unions - recognition by the "state" regarding rights and obligations related to a same sex relationship equal to those accorded any opposite sex couple.

While I sympathize with the travails of gay people in society, and don't think gay marriage is the end of the world, I also think that a government mandated right to gay marriage won't change the fact that, for even the most committed gay couple, won't change the fact that marriage is defined by society (and the world at large) as the union between a man and a woman. There are limits to what the government can mandate in any society. The government can't mandate that we change the name of the season "summer" to "winter." What is the harm? Well, people won't buy it even if the governments says it's the case.
- Charlie M, Portsmouth

Nice to see you supporting the nanny state, Joe!
- Susan Bruce, Jackson, NH

"Otherwise, the social fabric of this state, and perhaps the nation, are going to be altered in ways that many of us haven't begun to imagine.".....Canada has allowed gay marriages for quite a few years now and I don't see their society being ripped to shreds. In fact, I would guess that last night's Bruins win had more of an affect on Canada than gay marriages.
- Bill, New Boston, NH

Joe, I disagree with you. I'm all for religious freedom and allowing religions to decide who they will marry and who they will not. But when the federal govenment and our business are allowed to discriminate between one group of people, and exclude others based purely on sexual orientation, then I draw the line. Both the federal goverment, and for instance medical insurance companies, today treat gay couples very different to on-gay couples; and that is not right. Either all couples should be allowed to marry, or the pratice of discrimination based on sexual orientation needs to end; you choose.
- Alan, Atlanta

"The people pushing these "gay marriage'' bills nationwide don't want tolerance. They are about forcing society to embrace and give positive reinforcement to their lifestyle and agenda in our schools and in every other area of public life imaginable."

So, this editorial board seems to be indicating that society should NOT "give positive reinforcement" to this "lifestyle." What, then, should be taught about homosexuality in schools? That gay people are immoral? That their love is unnatural? To me, the idea that this would encourage gay people to be treated like any other person in school and out is perhaps the best reason to support gay marriage.

Also, in my experience, most of those who believe it to be so easy to "turn people gay" are gay themselves, as any person who understands their own sexuality would tell you that they couldn't make that switch even if they wanted to. I spent several difficult years of my life wishing I were a heterosexual, but kept finding my way back to my simple reality.
- Nick, Durham

See the new article by David Goldman in First Things Magazine Online entitled Demography and Depression which indicates that the current economic meltdown was caused by the lack of two-parent families with children.
There no longer is the demographic base of families to economically support the elderly and single dependents.

Excerpt:
Now, consider this fact: America’s population has risen from 200 million to 300 million since 1970, while the total number of two-parent families with children is the same today as it was when Richard Nixon took office, at 25 million. In 1973, the United States had 36 million housing units with three or more bedrooms, not many more than the number of two-parent families with children—which means that the supply of family homes was roughly in line with the number of families. By 2005, the number of housing units with three or more bedrooms had doubled to 72 million, though America had the same number of two-parent families with children.
- Wayne Lusvardi, Pasadena, California

Good article. For those who ask, What is the harm?" just wait until your kid's pre-school starts teaching about the prince and the prince. It's already happening in Mass. The entire gay-marriage movement is orchestrated by people who dislike tradition, and want to upset the apple cart for the mere sake of it. As for "equality," go try to marry your daughter. Marriage is a highly regulated priviledge, not a "right."
- Vincent, Fairfield, CT

Thank you Governor Lynch and Mr. McQuaid for taking a strong stand in defense of marriage. That is what it means to be a leader. Being a leader means examining the consequences of a proposed law. Then determining if that is in the best interests of the citizens. It's not all about you. But most gays are quite the narcissists.

In 1965, Senator Daniel Patrick Moyninan wrote "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" which described the effect a lack of nuclear families had on blacks. Prior to politics he worked as a sociologist at Harvard. The same report could be written today referring to New Hampshire alone. The man was a seer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan#Career_as_scholar

Other sociological works of the era paint a bleak forecast on the demise of the two-sex nuclear structure, like "Family and Civilization" by Carle C. Zimmerman. Start reading. http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/02/family-and-civilization.html

Moynihan, JFK, Speaker O'Neill and Governor Casey represented a bigger tent Democratic party. Governor Lynch is standing in good company.
- Steve, Manch

Government should get out of the marriage business. If the state just recognized unions for legal purposes, that would allow those people entering the union to declare what their union was - marriage, coupledom, etc. I think this would solve the problem.
- Jeremiah, Laconia, NH

The human race,'' Murchison writes, "understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and protection.

What I don't understand about that statement is how it precludes same sex couples. Same sex couples can certainly "reinforce" social survival and protection by their marriage so I can't figure out what the problem is. Many same sex couples have children, yet those children are being denied married parents for no apparent reason other than some people don't like the choices their parents made. How many kids today would have married parents if we could base their parents marriage on all the choices they made? It makes NO sense. Marriage is supposed to be about family support, yet some seem to think only the RIGHT type of family deserves it. That isn't what America is about.
- Mike Chambers, New York City

I'm always amused by how fast the moonbats change the subject when poligamy or marrying animals comes up. One can use the exact same arguments to justify these acts. Who gets hurt if I want to marry four women? Who gets hurt if I marry my dog? Isn't it my 'right' to do as I please?
- Bob D., Manchester

What is heartening is seeing the amount of support for gay marriage by NH folks listed in the comment section EVERY time the UL runs an article on the subject...we are not talking the Concord Monitor, but the Union Leader!

Why? Because NH folks are fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives. Take the religion out of this argument, and you don't have one.

Joe, did you happen to catch John McCain's top advisor's remarks yesterday?
Steve Schmidt in his support of gay marriage was quoted as saying by no less than Fox News:

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

I urge all free-thinking NH folks to contact their legislators too...don't let the biblical beliefs of some make laws for all.
- Cathy, Derry

Marriage has NEVER been a static institution, including in this country.

"Traditional" means different things to different people, during differnt periods in time...and tradition changes as individuals add their own spin.

"Traditional" marriage by the pioneers of this country included men in their late teens and early twenties marrying 'girls' in their early teen years...or once they reached 'maturity'....Traditionally women were the property of the man and were not able to have a voice of their own or any 'rights' as they have today. Traditionally women did not work outside the home, with VERY few exceptions. They were to be the homemaker, and childbearer, and basically concubine. Do we really want to push this 'Traditional Marriage"? I have a feeling some women not to mention some men may object.

Marriage changed when Women were given the right to vote, and the right to inherit. Marriage changed when women went out and into the mainstream workplace..Marriage changed when a husband could no longer legally beat or rape his wife. Marriage changed when women were allowed to be educated and pursue degrees...and of course marriage changed when we allowed CIVIL divorce.

As for history, The rules of marriage were quite different for different societies in different eras...Its easy enough to look up for yourself. And religiously speaking...there were actual ceremonies for same sex couples to be united in the eyes of the church prior to and ending around 1300. There are physical documents of these ceremonies.
Also, we have various Native American tribes, who this country truly belongs to...that honored and respected same sex unions.

So the premise that comes out of a FABLE in a book that has been changed so many times over the years, that a god created marriage between a man and a woman is nothing more than false. Marriage is a word scribed by the French many years after the original letters of the bible were ever penned. The original text of the book calls man and women "COMPANIONS" that is the correct translation. So are we now to go back and change that definition because it REALLY doesn't fit our 'Lifestyle' or should we move onto reality and accept that we live in a country that is supposed to treat its citizens fairly and equal....with disregard to a specific religion?
- David, Oak Park, IL

Those who say they can not see the harm in changing marriage obviously are not taking two minutes of their time to think about it. If marriage has not always meant one man and one woman then if this were to pass it can mean just about anything and those pushing this new definition know it. There will be nothing to stop it from progressing into other forms of marriage. But the worst part is those in government who seek to pass this know what a mess such a thing will create since it is they who will declare it law. Unless of course you live in Massachusetts then your courts decide for you and your legislators ignore the people and the state constitution by not allowing the people to vote on the issue. Three times the people got the signatures to have this issue put on the ballot and three times their legislators let it die in committee. Such is the glory of an all powerful one party state that in my view resembles communism more than the republic it was meant to be.
- Deb, Derry

Murchison's article is pure drivel. Just read the comments (including mine). They said the same thing about mixed race marriages.

How do I know that this bill may be passed? Because Joe wrote a front page editorial urging its defeat!
- Bill, Amherst

"Otherwise, the social fabric of this state, and perhaps the nation, are going to be altered in ways that many of us haven't begun to imagine"

Gee, if your way of life is going to be so altered you mustn't have much faith in your own convictions.

I am in a civil union -- I just get the right to also call it marriage due to the fact that we are male/female. No clergy were involved in the blessing of our union; just family and friends. And I get all the rights and legal benefits of marriage - something not true for friends in same sex unions.

The hypocrisy of those who feel that a "separate but equal" union is acceptable are no better than supported laws against interracial marriage. Please tell me -- has any marriage or union been negatively impacted once the Supreme Court rules against laws on miscegenation?
- Terry, Goffstown

Gee...for a guy who routinely complains about how government should stay out of peoples lives, I find it VERY interesting that Joe McQuaid would use his Sunday "bully pulpit" to advocate FOR governmental power. Rather talking out of both sides of your mouth isn't it Mr. McQuaid?

There were no qualifications in The Bill of Rights when the Founding Fathers agreed upon the words that all "men are created equal". There weren't any clauses in that sentence. Which means. in its simplest form, that each and every one of us are free to enjoy the rights and privileges of living here in The United States.

You can't have it both ways Mr. McQuaid. You either believe that New Hampshire is the ole flinty Granite State where we "Live Free or Die" (which is your opinion at least every four years when we approach the Presidential Primaries) and let people live their lives as they choose, with as little governmental interference as possible, or you don't.

I think perhaps you are the one who needs to examine your motives and beliefs not the legislators in Concord nor those who disagree with what Gov. Lynch stated earlier this week. Because, at the end of the day, if someone wants to get married...and they are legally free to do so...there is nothing in the State Constitution that could be used as justification to deny a simple civil right to one group that has been available to other groups for the several centuries that our state has existed. Plain and simple.
Peace
- Joel, Nashua

It seems that many know it all posters impune the motives of their opposites and pull out the chicken little sky is falling mantra of the paranoid. Only the severely psychically damaged think that a homosexual couple that wants to get married are doing it to destroy civilisation as we know it. They have suffered years of your bad treatment and say that they want marriage to cover them like it does you. You obviously don't know what they think or feel. When they tell you, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with your world view. It isn't always about you - its about them, and they want it.
- William, Deerfield

Joe. Marriage is a term for the Church. Civil Union is a term for the State. I am not going into your church and demanding gay people get married in it. We need to take the word 'marriage' out of the State definition for the union between two people recognized for tax purposes only. Joe, if you really want to get irrate at what is ripping apart the fabric of our society, you should really write an article on how many Republicans treat marriage as a disposable action, divorcing and cheating on one of the most sacred of institutions. THAT, my confused friend, is what is wrong with society today. Because guess what? I'm sure in your church, marriage is defined as forever. How many of your Republican friends have spit in the face of that obligation?
- John, Portsmouth

Civil unions for all sounds like a great idea. This way, if couples want to be hitched in a church that only recognizes man-woman hitching then it can be called a marriage. For everyone else, it can be called a civil union which it really is anyway. If I get hitched to a man before a J.P. then it will be a civil union.
A rose by any other name....... Most importantly, folks should realize that it is a legal contract. I just think in the interest of full disclosure, all the rules, responsibilities under the law could be written out and handed to each couple to sign their name to it so they really know what they are getting into. I'll bet not so many people will be as anxious to get hitched then.
- Ann, Manchester

A ham sandwich is defined as basically a piece of ham stuck between two pieces of bread. It is not a piece of roast beef stuck between two pieces of bread. Why do homosexuals get to change what a ham sandwich is? What else shall we change? A car will now be called a bike? A basketball will now be called a frisbee? A dog will now be called a cat? When will the plea be made for a loving relationship between a man and his dog to be called a marriage? These people are freaks! - Jim
- Jim, Stratham, NH

Obviously he has no gay family members, yet. Once he does he'll write about how we should be changing laws to help them in anyway.........b/c we are all just people.
- James, weare

Joe, if your social fabric is ripped apart because two other people also want to get married and be responsible, then that is YOUR problem, not mine, and not Americas.
- steve boyington, chester

There are many people in America who believe that the gay lifestyle is not morally correct. Before anyone goes ballistic with the usual "hate speech" nonsense, remember that we do have freedom of (and not from) religion, and therefore are not bound to a homogeneous view on this subject (no pun intended). In the finest tradition of our "justice for all" precept, gay couples have been extended legal rights through civil unions. Now gays wish to have their relationship legally legitimized through marriage, which would strengthen any personal opposition to the gay lifestyle as "hate". Ultimately, this will prevent churches from teaching their own faith within the confines of their own buildings, as has already been demonstrated in Canada. Let's leave marriage alone, and not let a small percentage of our society redefine institutions that are the underpinning of human civilization.
- Jack, Manchester

Marriage is, and should remain, a union between one man and one woman. The minority of oddballs who want to redefine every moral principal this country was founded on are simply looking for an avenue to legitimacize and justify their immoral desires. Gays are not being descriminated against in this matter. They are simply being told that the rest of us don't want to lower the standards and values of our society simply to embrace their non-conforming lifestyles.
- Brian, Farmington

How about civil unions for all. I think that is the real answer.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that opposition to gay marriage is about "protecting the human species." How does not allowing gay people to marry protect the human species?

Opposition to gay marriage is a form of homophobia. Homophobia remains, unfortunately, one of the few forms of bigotry that is still at least tacitly allowed in today's world. How many other forms of bigotry could be so easily embraced in an editorial? I know you want gay people to go back into the closet but that is not going to happen. Since the Stonewall riots gay people have been fighting for equality and that is not going to stop until they achieve that equality.

We need to normalize gay relationships so they have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges that straight people have.

If we can't have civil unions for all then I say gay marriage now.
- David, Derry, NH

JOE..This is one I won't agree with you! I'm not gay and happily married but I can't see the harm in letting people who love each other marry! It's not your business or mine. We're supposed to be 'Live free or die"...remember?
- cleverdave, madison

I think that it was unfair when we as a nation had segregation between Black Americans and White Americans. Or when women were treated less than equal. We are all Americans. So why would you tell a gay couple that they are not allowed to get married because they are gay? It shouldn't matter if you are gay or straight. Everyone is created equal and should be given equal rights. I believe that our state, correction our country, is ready to take that next step and have TRUE equality.
- Natasha Jean, Northwood NH

I love Gov. Lynch, he has done the state well and has been a decent bipartisan voice on most things. I agreed with the article on his support for marriage as only between a man and woman. However, who are you hurting by letting gay people marry? It does not unbalance structured family life, it doesn't corrupt our youth. The strongest (and the one with the most holes) is the religious argument. For every quote you can name from the bible, you'll be bombarded by 10 with outdated sayings. If gay marriage is wrong then I reserve my right to stone people. Expect that to come in front of the legislature soon. Sit down and shut up, let people live their lives. You want to speak freely, live freely, protest freely, then please stop impeding on others' right to be happy, create a prosperous life, and enjoy the loving home of a family.
- Josh, Colebrook, NH

"The people pushing these "gay marriage'' bills nationwide don't want tolerance. They are about forcing society to embrace and give positive reinforcement to their lifestyle and agenda in our schools and in every other area of public life imaginable." -- Quite true, like people who forced civil rights for blacks wanted to. The only assault happening is to the civil rights of some americans you are afraid of, that you deem less equal. Secular reasons for denying civil rights to citizens please.
- Dorothy, Concord

Marriage matters? It certainly does to people who want to make a legally binding commitment to each other. That does include people of both genders, whether it is male-female, male-male, or female-female. However, to many people today, marriage just means a piece of paper; nothing more.

What constitutes a family today is entirely different from what it was 50 years ago. Now, because of "serial marriages" there may be children in a family who each have a different father.
Add to that, adopted children and foster children, plus grandchildren.

There are far more single mothers today than there were years ago. Some have never married, some are divorced or widowed. And some of these single mothers develop gay relationships with other women so there are two moms instead of one.

Gay marriages do not constitute a threat to traditional marriage. The major threat is divorce!

What is important, especially where children are involved, is that there be love in the family. Whether the love comes from a male or a female makes no difference whatsoever.

Pat Kraft
- Pat Kraft, Concord NH