Maine vote energizes same-sex marriage foes

YOUR COMMENTS

The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.

NOTE: If you have read this article before, you may not be seeing the newest comments. Press F5. Or click "Refresh" or "Reload" at the top of this page while holding down Ctrl. All approved postings will appear. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)

There was no marriage license in New Hampshire until 1998.

This problem is that this is a minority using the power of government to beat the majority into submission.

Furthermore, I believe that the Constitution of New Hampshire does not empower the legislature to define marriage only recognize it.
- Dan Itse, Fremont

The marriage amendment centers around the issue that purpose of the Constitution is to limit Government. Marriage is not a side issue, but probably the most fundamental to our society. The fundamental question is did the Legislature have the power to redefine marriage.

The Constitution of New Hampshire imparts a general power to make laws in Part 1, Articles 12 and 29. It gives specific empowerment to levy taxes in Part 1, Art 28 and to authorize schools in Part 1, Art 6 (until removed in 1968). These specific authorizations mean those powers are not included in the general power. What sets these powers apart is that they reach into your family (property and children). Would a society that recognized that special authority was necessary to broach the sanctity of the family and required that you be a protestant to be a legislator until 1871 and a publich school teacher until 1968 have included the power to define or redefine marriage in the general power to make laws?

Probably not. The impartation of this power or rather the denial of it is the question of the Marriage Amendment?
- Dan, Fremont

I favor traditional marriage, and was shocked when my socially conservative native state voted, in a highly partisan manner, to approve the current gay marriage law. However, I would not favor a constitutional amendment to remedy the situation unless the NH Supreme Court ruled that a anti-gay marriage law violated the State Constitution.

The right for gays to marry is simply not a constitutionally protected civil right, federal or state wise, simply a legislatively granted right. The people of NH have spoken though their legislature. If the people are unhappy
with the legislative vote them out!
- gary b. bisson, arlington VA

Nick in Keene,
I love how you criticize people who “constantly classify and subjugate different people in society” and then proceed to classify people as homophones and racists and try to subjugate their behavior. Only liberals are right, right Nick?

For your information homosexuals have been getting ‘married’ for decades in the Episcopal Church and for centuries in non-religious ceremonies. There is and never has been a law against having gay ‘marriage ceremonies.’ Just the state and other religious groups do not recognize them have to recognize them thru civic association or tax subsidies.

This is all about forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Gays can call themselves 'married' if they want to. But what they cannot do, with or without a law, if force the rest of us to accept their lifestyle as moral. No one has been beaten or arrested for participating in a gay ‘wedding’ (as a black would have been in Alabama 40 years ago for trying to vote, for example). Homosexuals are not prohibited from seeking and obtaining happiness, unless it makes them happy to discriminate against people who are morally opposed to homosexuality.
- Jim, Manchester

So, a person who is gay who has never done anything wrong in his/her life is going to hell for being gay as it is a sin? But, those predatory priests and their bosses, Bishop McCormack and Cardinal Law, who knowingly swept it all under the rug to ‘protect’ the Church are being forgiven? Is there a passage in the bible about not throwing rocks if one lives in a glass house?
- Will, Salem NH

Kevin, Derry: There is absolutely no scientific consensus that gays are born that way. How, then do you explain people who were once hetero and perhaps were abused by an oppostive sex person (many times why people turn to homosexuality) then deciding they're now gay? This happens quite often. Many heteros have a one time experience during adolesence with a same sex person and never become gay. It's a part of the sexual experimentation stage of raging harmones.

You can still love a gay person, have them for friends, and not support gay marriage. Homophobia is hatred of a person and that's not what many of us feel at all who have friends who are gay. Why do gays strive so much to insist people who merely disagree w/them "hate" them. It's simply not true.
- judy, bradford

I take offense at your comment about Baptist ministers. Are you saying that they are wrong? Because when it comes to this issue one group is wrong. Who is wrong? Do you think I want my kids growing up thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to be gay, when in reality it is a sin against God. Those who know the truth and continue to live in sin will be punished. No matter which side you take, people will be discriminated against. I guess it is just matter of which group of people is more important.
- Tom, Manchester

This country or state SHOULD NOT be run according to ANY religious beliefs!
- Pamela, Hooksett NH

Funny it seems to me that most of our country is based off of christianity. Don't kill, don't steal, respect you parents, sex is bad. If the government had nothing to do with anything religious then it would have nothing to do with marriage. I'm also pretty sure marriage isn't a right just like a drivers license.

I think any legal marriage should be a civil union. Change the name keep it the same. It's a legal union of two people. Marriage is a union of two people under god. Oh look at that problem solved.
- Russell, Laconia

Edwin in Litchfield,
I'm fine with some kind of compromise regarding INVENTING some form of ‘gay rights’ like you discuss. Liberals are just as entitled, under the US constitution, to their pro-gay ethic as I am to my Biblical ethic (of course they will most likely burn in Hell for the lack of faith humanism represents, but that is another discussion). I was happy when sodomy rights were repealed. I had only minor slippery slope type reservations about anti-discrimination laws, plus concern for organizations like the Boy Scouts. Civil Union certainly didn’t make me happy but I could live with it. The problem is that the Rainbow Coalition simply refuses to compromise, they have gone too far. They are indoctrinating kids, practicing reverse discrimination, and deliberately publicly flaunting their behavior, in front of people they know perceive it as immoral. I believe that used to be call that being disrespectful, now it’s more accurately called hateful.
- Jim, Manchesterq

Tom Labrie in Rochester, judy in Bradford, Kevin in Derry, and J Paige in Manchester,
That you cannot see the bigotry and hypocrisy in your positions and posts on this web page is truly astonishing.
- Jim, Manchester

Will in Salem,
It took hundreds of years to eliminate slavery, and another 85 years to acheive civil rights equality in the US. The womens sufferage movements toiled for 60 years to 're-educate' society. The rainbow movement has only been at it 35 years, and hasn't given 're-education' adequate time to work before resorting to legal force. That is why you are seeing this blow back.

By the way, an slightly larger percetage of homosexual 'families' are even more messed up than heterosexual families, so your point is invalid.
- Jim, Manchester

NG, Keene,
No one is "discriminating" against "homosexuals," but rather a group of people who aren't orthodox liberals feel that they have a right to live free and happy with the same rights as other Americans and not be forced to swallow gay dogma as the rule of law. If you don't like marriage [a union between one man and one woman], don't get heterosexual married (get a gay civil union instead). Its pretty simple really.

Do you inderstand now that you are only trying to put the shoe on the other foot? That is why civil unions was the best comprimise.
- Jim, Manchester

1) Instead of saying "let the people decide, let's vote", why not just have the brass to say you hate gay people? 2) equating homosexuality to the fall of the roman empire? really? anyone take that seriously still? 3) Alot of the opponents of gay marriage sound like they were raised by in the 1950's by either bad history teachers or baptist ministers. This issue will never settle down until gays can marry than 10 years later no one will have an issue with it.
- J Paige, Manchester

The Supreme Court just needs to make descrimination against sexuality illegal. All men are create dequal. This is no different than when some people thought slavery was OK. People are born Gay, they should be able to marry. The only reason this is an issue
1) Homo-phobes-People just don't like something they aren't and can't understand
2) Religion-Once again religious people like to use there religion to put down and descriminate other people. The sad thing being the actual evidence that does exist showed Jesus himself loved all people and would be disgusted by the persecution and descrimination of gays

On the positive side, like slavery, racial descrimination and the like, it will eventually be gotten right. It also appears it'll be less than 100+ years that it took from civil war to the Civil Rights Movement as the generation under 30 overwhelmingly supports gays rights to marry.
It is amazing the amount of ignorance that can spread through 1 generation that thankfully can be fixed by the next.
Society will be better off. To say if you care about this you must be gay is utter ignorance. If you live in a society that is persecuting a minority of any kind and you think, Well, it's not me so I don't care, then you are a pretty rotten person.
The rep voting "the way people want him to" yet we don''t have casinos in NH which is overwhelmingly supported by the people.
Just because there are a bunch of incredibly ignorant people doesn't mean you listen to them since they are descriminating based on illigitimate fears.
- Kevin, Derry NH

Bill, how is this a "fight" for civilization? If the rate of population has increased to the point where there are more people alive than dead... doesn't that give you the hint that homosexuality serves a completely functional purpose in CONTROLLING population? Granted, while some homosexuals opt to reproduce, the amount of births by homosexual parents are markedly less than hetero births. I'm not debating values here, because quite frankly there's no point where I am a nihilist, but your argument is totally illogical.
- Kelly, Brookline

Uh, Bill...Rome fell for many reasons, but none were about homosexuality. You should probably educate yourself in history a bit before making such statements. Google "Constantine," and then you'll see where state administrated socially accepted homophobia came from. Check out "Visigoths" and you'll learn about the fall of Rome.

Now, as for this gay marriage ban rubbish. I will really never understand the basic need in some people to constantly classify and subjugate different people in society. Racism is now effectively taboo in society, outside of crude humor and certain less intelligent circles. Yet homophobia, while possibly even disguising itself as some sort of faux moralism, is for some reason tolerated as a socially acceptable and very well thing to be a part of. If you belong to a church which doesn't wish to marry homosexuals, than fine, the church should not be forced to do so. But if two consenting adults which to enter into a ceremonial contract with one another in the same manner as anyone else, who are you, or the apparent throngs of reactionary Mainiacs to the east, to tell them that they haven't the rights under US law to do so?

"Conservative" isn't the word for this sort of politics, for it infers a belief that Government should stay out of people's business. So what then is it, if not simply bigotry? Politics based on discrimination.
- Nick, Keene

a quote from elton john...
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

the queen has spoken...nothing more needs to be said!
- fpc, bedford

It is actually a good thing for our society that gay marriage is being soundly rejected in this country.

The fall of one of the greatest civilizations in history (The Roman Empire) died due to moral decay such as sodomy and a host of other deviant behavior. Let's not see history repeat itself and throw ourselves into another Dark Ages.

This is not a religious argument, it is a fight for survival of our civilization.
- Bill, Candia

Maine has many areas that are not the most well educated, if you know what I mean.

Even slightly more sophisticated people have less fear of strange (to them) people.

There is no substantive reason to not allow gays to marry, but bigotry (A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a mighty thing in itself. It is a subtle form of evil, whereby human progress is withheld.
- Tom Labrie, Rochester

Gay people should have equal rights just as anybody else. This country or state SHOULD NOT be run according to ANY religious beliefs! This country was founded on religious FREEDOM and therefore CHRISTIAN values should NOT be a determining factor in ANY POLITICAL DECISION! RELIGIOUS factors tend to be the major debate in gay marriage, and without those religious concerns there would be no issue with gay marriage. The bible is a book written by people and interpreted by people. THERE IS SOOOO MUCH ROOM FOR ERROR!!! In a country that is supposedlly founded on religious freedoms why is it that we let the Christian religion guide so much of the politics in this country???? GAY RIGHTS ARE EQUAL RIGHTS!!!
- Pamela, Hooksett NH

I'm a former NH resident who wishes I was back. Civil rights for minorities have never been voted in by the majority. If the majority had its way, women and minorities would be relegated to the will of white, straight men.
- Randal, Nebraska

Civil rights are won in small steps. NH proved its strength by passing equality in its marriage laws this year, another step forward. If people with Kevin Smith's mind set continue to gain power we will take many steps backwards. Lets finally step forward look up to the heavens and ask god for his strength! So we can learn to ignore the likes of Smith. Once again Rep's Itse and Dumaine prove what Senator Norris Cotton used to say"Any damn fool can get elected to the NH House, and most have"
- Shawn, Concord NH

When the old dinosaures die off equal rights will no longer be an issue. If equal rights for African Americans were put to a vote in many states in the 60's the voters would have rejected that too, Notice now how history proves those majorities to be wrong!
- Greg Barrett, Manchester

It is a pure and simple issue -- LET THE PEOPLE OF NH VOTE!! We the people of the great state of NH also need to take our house back by voting in Legislators and Senatos who seve the people and remove those who lord over us!!
- Kathleen -, Auburn

A hearty "Congratulations " to the fine folks of Maine. I realy didn't think the residents of Maine had the gumption to stand up and do what is right.
If only our citizens in New Hampshire had the same gumption and common sense, New Hampshire would be far better off.
Look at Massachusetts and se how many of the hetrerosexual families have had enough and departed the state while some of the homosexual crowd, who did not have a second home or cotage in NH moved to NH in an obvious atempt to further assert their perversions on New Hampshire as well as other states. How many of them are still residents? this is unknown. Let's not welcome them with open arms, send them back to Massachusetts.

Step#1 in the people of New Hampshire regaining their state is to vote out the liberals who were voted in to accomplish the passing of the Same Sex Marriage Act in NH. Next is to vote out, or recall the "Do Nothing Photo Opportunistic Governor" and start over.
Re-claim the State of New Hampshire and bring it back to what our forefathers intended it to be, Not what a small amount of Special Interest Groups turned it into by buying of the New Hampshire Politicians
- Wiliam Rhoades, Heniker

Seems the people against homosexual marriage are using mostly religious-based arguments.
We have a separation of church from state to keep these irrational and often ridiculous religious views out of secular matters. Homosexuals are people first and ought to be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexuals as long as they also agree to be susceptible to the same pitfalls.
Seriously, why is this such a big deal? Let them marry each other if they want. It has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's marriage.
Chris Rock summed it up best for me. "Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
- j, manchester

My issue is not with homosexuals. It is with teaching my childeren that it is ok to be a homosexual. It is an abomination under God. Religion unfortunately has to play a role in this. My values are based on Biblical truth. And fortunately this country gives me the freedom to believe this. I just wish that the same protections that the government so willy nilly provides to minorities, would also be provided to Christians. I can't even say that I think being gay is wrong without being considered for a hate crime prosecution. But I suppose if I accused a gay rights advocate of the same thing, I would be quickly shot down. Many may call a christian small minded, but in all honesty it is the anti chrisians that are small minded. Now, don't think I hate gays, I most certainly don't. I happen to be friends with many. I just have a hard time teaching my kids that it is acceptable, when it most certainly is not.
- Tom, Manchester

As it stands, there is no reasonable argument against gay marriage; only bigotry.

By opposing gay marriage, you aren't doing anything to avert change. You're simply postponing it. Once all you wingnuts are in nursing homes or dead, this won't even be an issue. Gay marriage will just be a reality everywhere throughout the US. The same way your grandparents had to deal with black people being allowed to vote. I know change is hard, and sometimes you don't like it, but sometimes it is inevitable.
- Tom, Keene

I've been reading these comments, pro and con, and have to say that I'm very impressed at the caliber of the debate. This is a topic that can easily sink into hostile name-calling and expose the baser elements of our nature. Instead, what I see is the result of an open, free society that encourages the respectful exchange of ideas. I think our forefathers would be proud.
- Ed Dunkel, Plymouth

So what is so wrong about letting the people of NH decide? At least Maine allowed the voters to have their say.

Why is everyone so worried? The big travesty is that the NH voters have not been heard. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, taxes, gay marriage, etc. the people have the right to vote in new representatives and if the new reps push it through then it's voted on.

Remember Rep. Splaine, how many times did you try to get this through before success. The one man - one woman group have the same chance to change it... a little more difficult but still an opportunity to do so.
- Jake, Litchfield

By the way, anyone who thinks domestic abuse only occurs among heterosexuals is kidding themselves. I have known more than one gay man who has been beaten up by his partner.
- Eric, Manchester

Nothing gets liberals more annoyed than when citizens vote and it does not go their way.... Look for them to get this done in the courts as it was done in MA.... When do the citizens of NH get to vote?
- seamusnh, NH

The legislature is not supposed to rubber stamp constitutional amendments. Our Founding Fathers required large supermajority votes be cast in both the House and the Senate because the only Constitional Amendments that should go to the voters are ones that are strongly endorsed by the legislature.

The legislature carefully looks at these issues and consults experts in all affected areas to be able to make informed decisions. Public votes are often decided by slogans, advertising and misinformation campaigns. This was true even back in colonial times and it's even more true today.
- Brian Rater, Brookline

Excellent. Get this repealed and sanity restored.

There's a place for those of the same sex who want to get "married".

Massachusetts.
- Tom, Campton

Steve you say that Civil unions provide the same benifits except name. That statement is wrong. If my partner was to die, even with a will I would not be entitled to inheritence, If he was sick I would not be able to carry out his wishes or even in some cases visit him, we don't get the same tax benifits, and the list goes on. So Steve please tell me how I have the same rights as you
- Chris, Manchester

We should end the legal recognition of marriage altogether. This issue has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with the legal recognition of a marriage.

There is no ban on gay marriage anywhere in the country. You can find someone to perform the ceremony and call yourself married all you want. What you can't do is get preferential treatment through law based on that bond. At the same time, neither can single individuals (they're never afforded special status), or polygamists, or direct relatives and so on.

Let's drop it as a legal matter altogether. You're whatever you want to be. We all file taxes as individuals. We all designate someone to aid and comfort us in the hospital. We designate a caretaker for our children, should it become necessary. No more divorce proceedings clogging the courts. No more back and forth rhetoric.
- Alex, Nashua

Dick, The "divorce" rate grows every year in Vermont (and I'm sure other states) among gays and the first woman married in Mass. didn't last a year. Domestic violence certainly isn't limited to heteros either. These are really ridiculous arguments for supporting gay marriage. First of all, if you think a piece of paper will make you happy, you're all nuts on both sides.

Are you saying nature, God or whatever didn't create a perfect fit between a man and a woman? It's like a garden hose having a male and female coupler for cryin out loud. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous.

Believe it or not, most heteros aren't nearly as obsessed with what you do in your bedroom as you are nor could we care less.

I'm tired of the already attempted indoctrination of children in our public schools that are starting to teach and encourage alternative life styles with our tax $ too. I'm really sick of the kids being taught Obama praise songs as well. It's just plain wrong.

Quoting the Bible, unless you're a theologian, makes you look ridiculous as well people.
- judy, bradford

Personally, I believe that marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers. But don't think I don't tolerate gay people. I tolerate them with all of my heart.
- Tina F., New York, NY

Let's see....defense of marriage between a man and a woman...supposedly the "natural order of things". And it works so well, doesn't it? As I recall, the divorce rate is up over 50%, and there is no "rate" for the amount of domestic abuse, neglect and violence that heterosexual marriage has bred. As far as "evolution" goes, one could argue that homosexuality is one of nature's brakes on the rate of growth of the human population, which already stands at completely unsustainable levels. So, let's take a breath, back off from this nonsense about what "nature" intended, since we're so busy in other aspects of our lives destroying the very "nature" that some here say they want to so ardently defend.
- Dick, Concord

Traditional marriage?

So, we're going back to treating marriage as a business relationship between two wealthy families, with the women treated as property? Will we also be allowed to beat our wives if they don't put out or cook for us?

Can we make this retroactive? I want to hit up my father-in-law for a dowry payment.
- Nathan, Manchester

First, to deal with the same old tired sound bites: the government is not going into anybody's bedroom - news flash, it's not illegal to be homosexual, or for homosexuals to live together. Also, it's not a question of anyone not being allowed to love anyone else. Love all you want.

What this is about, is the forcible redefinition of the basic unit of human life, the family. Over thousands of years, human cultures have defined what it means to be married. In our English heritage, this understanding was expressed in the common law. Marriage and the family existed before the U.S. government; probably before any government. This also goes far deeper than Christianity, or any one religion.

Gay "marriage" is not about oppressed people finally getting a right that under normal conditions, they would have had already. We are not talking freeing slaves here. This is a 'right' that has been created by legislative fiat.

Keith Murphy, I agree with you that government should not be involved in the definition of marriage at all. But right now, it is. And the government's creation of gay marriage makes a statement that homosexual relationships - which are condemned by every major religion and also constitute a biological, evolutionary dead end - are 'the same as' or 'just as good as' heterosexual unions. And that just isn't true.
- Eric, Manchester

I don't think the government should be involved in marriage to begin with. Marriage was a church thing first, and a legal government thing second.

Let the gays marry - I am very conservative, and I could give a S___ less what they do. I know I am not in line 100% with all Conservative values. From a religious standpoint the Christians dont recognize marriages that are not in the church as being legit anyways. Let the goverment give them gay marriage to their heart's delight. It will just be a state document. I have no problem with this, as long as the church is never forced through legislation to marry gays in the church.
- Edwin, Litchfield

As a heterosexual Agnostic I don't personally care for either the homosexual nor the "God-fearing, hate-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-tells-me-to" lifestyles.

But let's be clear on few things...

1. There is no valid secular reason to not allow homosexuals to legally marry.

2. We are talking about a legal definition here, not a religious one. The Establishment Clause tells us good Americans that these should be kept separate.

3. The Bible also says that if a your wife wasn't a virgin when you married her she should be stoned to death. (Deut. 22:13-21). Don't be a hypocrite and only pick and choose what things in your Good Book you want to believe. Otherwise you are simply using the Bible to mask your hate, insecurities or segregationist beliefs. I doubt that's what your God intended. And if it is, well now you know why I call myself an Agnostic.

4. Just because gay people can't marry doesn't mean they will go away and you will still have to teach your children to hate or discriminate against them.

5. Our government is NOT as democracy at the state or federal level. It never has been. It is a republic. If you don't like it, work to change the system or simply move somewhere else.
- SM, Londonderry

I know one Republican vote John Hikel got last time that he will not get next time.
- Cynthia, Goffstown

Keith Murphy says "Studies show that young Republicans generally support gay marriage"

Keith, you're not a Republican in the Conservative sense, you're a hardcore libertarian. We know of your ties with the Free Staters, they meet at your bar.

I am a young conservative Republican, and I firmly believe in traditional marriage, and that sodomy is not marriage. You don't speak for me, or anyone I know.
- David Goss, Manchester

I usually vote Republican. I did in the last election, and I sure as heck plan on it in the next one. But if the NH GOP repeals gay marriage, then don't count on it. Our motto is Live Free or Die. It would be horribly embarrassing for our state to do such a thing.
- Tom, Keene

"same-sex marriage foes", UL? How about "defenders of marriage"?

Little slant there? Was this written by a Cambridge liberal?

And PUT THIS TO A PUBLIC VOTE HERE! We demand it!
- Mike R., Bedford

Put it to the popular vote? While we're at it, let's put everything else to the popular vote. Why have elected representatives? I'd like to end the wars; in fact, I would have voted against them in the first place. I'd like to vote for universal health care. If we put that to the popular vote, it would pass.

I believe that New Hampshire voters would pass same-sex marriage if it were put to the popular vote. I also believe that the nation would vote for same-sex marriage, if it were put strictly to a popular vote. Most people don't care if gay people marry - and we shouldn't! Get over it.
- Susan, Raymond

"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. "
- Dave, Londonderry

Isn’t NH supposed to be the ‘Live Free or Die’ state? I am just amazed at all of the people who scream that the government has no right to interfere on their lives with respect to taxes, health care, seat belt, use, guns, etc. immediately scream for the government to intervene when other people are doing something that they don’t like. Can’t have it both ways.

Unfortunately, sometimes the vocal majority is simply wrong. In the 1800’s, slavery would have never been abolished. In the 1960’s, equal rights for women and minorities would have never been achieved. The list goes on.

By the way, most gay couples I know don’t have children because parental rights are tied to marriage law in most states. If something was to happen (divorce, death, etc.), it can get ugly. As for gay couples having children, I have no issue with it if it is a good, loving home. Afterall, a loving gay couple should be able to provide a better environment that Brittany Spears and some of those messed-up straight ‘families’ do.
- Will, Salem NH

Jim, no one is "discriminating" against "bible believers," but rather a group of people who aren't orthodox Christians feel that they have a right to live free and happy with the same rights as other Americans and not be forced to swallow Christian dogma as the rule of law. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Its pretty simple really.
- NG, Keene

"I could ask of you why you feel letting the people have their say rather than having it forced on society is an issue?"
- Deb, Derry

Why cherry pick this as the one issue the people can have their say on? Why not let the people have their say on every issue? If we just put every bill up for popular vote, we could abolish the legislature altogether!

"Or was marriage always in the constitution and meaning any two living things can get married?"
- Deb, Derry

There is no reference to "marriage" whatsoever in the constitution. Just some silly stuff about pursuit of happiness and equal protection of the laws. And what's with the "any two living things" reference? Do you really think that comparing your neighbor's relationship to two animals "marrying" benefits your argument?

"Also why civil unions one year and marriage the next? Both with no say by the people."
- Deb, Derry

There was a major election (2008) between the time when civil unions (2007) and gay marriage (2009) were passed in this state. Legislators who supported civil unions were re-elected by significant margians. If that's not "the people" having a "say," I don't know what is.
- Dan, Manchester

The legislators who say let them decide already are smart enough to know that the people would vote against this law. They are arrogant in thinking that voters wll pick people they vote for will vote as they want them to. This just lets them off the hook because they think they will be forgotten in the long run. They get to Concord and do what they damn well please.
Let the people vote on these issues. The voters have voted against this issue in 31 referendums. This is not a civil rights issue. Stop hiding behind hyperbole.
- Shoals, Portsmouth

If 'Democrats' cared about voters rights this issue would have been on the ballot the first time.

I say we create a constituional amendment to create a ballot initiative process to repeal gay marriage.

Gay have to quit discriminating against Bible beleivers.
- Jim, Manchester

Well said Frank. I don't care what two people do in their homes, but I'm quite tired of the radical homosexual agenda.
- Ron, Manchester

I simply agree that it is an equal-rights issue. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't enter into a same sex marriage - why would you care if someone else does? An amendment that would be part of our Bill of Rights? Whose rights? Certainly not the rights of those that choose a different lifestyle! Equality under the law is the issue, not same sex marriage. And just for the record, I am not gay, I just believe in equality for all.
- Molly W, Manchester, NH

We true Republicans understand that government should have no say in personal decisions that don't impact anyone else. Society is changing and this change will bring happiness to a few and have no impact on the rest of us. I say go for it...
- Frank, York Me

Lynch has an anti-family agenda that he pushed aggressively immediately after each election 'mandate' he won. Aft
er only 5 short years:

His first term he tried to ram a constitutional amendment enshrining the illegal Claremont decisions.
His second term he rammed through the civil-unions bill, without campaigning on it.
And in his third term when the economy was clearly sputtering, gay marriage was signed after being passed by only
hairsplitting legislative vote.

The remedy is repealing the law. Civil-unions provide all the benefits except the name. And that name is worth fighting for.
- Steve, Manch

JP you really do not get the issue, and what continues to happen in NH. We are being dictated by few who feel they hear and know what their constituents are saying. Did you read what Splaine said. Basically he says you don't have a right. Just step aside they know more and know better to make decisions for you. Slowly we are going away from the "Live Free of Die" state to the "Get Over It we Know Better Than You" State. If this is the way this legislation feels than we have lost touch. We have become cattle without direction. It is a shame to say the people who vote don't have any say anymore. Just look at my town. Since the dismantling of the town meeting to vote, less and less even show up to vote or even know the issue to make a vote.
This state is moving to a democratic socialist state. It is a shame. People rise up and let's take it back!!!! Make your opinion known!!!!!
- George T., Auburn

At least Maine allows the PEOPLE to decide. Unlike Massachusetts North, I mean New Hampshire, where the legislature & Governer know how to decide what you will accept, regardless of what you think. "Live like we tell you & shut up about it" should be our state motto.

Put it on the ballot and let the people decide.
- Mike, Nottingham

This is a violation of the fourteenth amendment and possibly the separation clause. The first part is obvious in that equal protection under the law makes both the discrimination of an individual or group by the state illegal and thus the barring of consenting adults the ability to enter into a legal contract with one another to establish a life bond for the purposes of transference of property and rights of marriage illegal under US law.
The second part (the separation clause) could be argued in that the definition of a civil pact such as marriage by religious terms in the eyes of the state is in effect giving control and definition of said pact over to religious orthodoxies, who through selective viewings of religious teachings and a revisionist historical sense, claim that marriage is religious matter, even though on a secular legal level, it is anything but.
The moralist crowd needs to back off and reexamine itself. With all of the horrors, atrocities and injustices in the world today, singling out homosexuals as a subject of ire is a bit like worrying about one's patio furniture getting wet in the middle of a hurricane.
- Nicholas Goroff, Keene

Let the people decicde!
- D.J., Manchester

Who really cares if the homosexual community wants to be married? They're people just like you and I, so they should have the same rights. I've never understood what the big deal is. Oh, that's right....it's wrong in the eyes of religion. Give me a break...all religions have become a joke in this day and age. People fall back on it when it's convienient for them and those same people spit in their religion's face when it conflicts with their life. Get over it, move on, focus on more important things like why our government spends too much, why our teachers expect higher pay without doing a good job, why we allow people to suck off the system without having to ever give back...those are 3 things more important that gay marriage.
- Bill, Manchester

If the same tactics of Rep Itse were done in the 60's regarding segregation, I wouldn't be surprised if voters would vote to keep segregation. That would have been wrong, just as it's wrong to discriminate against same-sex marriage.
- Dan, Manchester

Why do we not get to vote on these things in the first place?
- Russell Follansbee, Laconia, NH

If we put up re-segregating our schools to a ballot vote, and it passed with a majority, does that mean it should actually happen? It's sad, but until sexual orientation becomes a Constitutionally protected right at the federal level, this type of bigotry will continue. (J Paige, I am neither obsessed with gay issues nor gay, simply concerned with equal rights and fairness for all, something this country was founded upon).
- Peter S, Manchester, NH

I think the voters and tax payers of NH would be far better served by their elected officials if they focused on the economy, health care reform and protecting our treasured natural resources, than focusing on gay marriage. These issues affect far more residents and to a far greater degree than who someone loves and wants to marry. Sheesh.
- JPKANT, Northwood

I agree with you J Paige, I notice everytime this issue comes up, the same people make comment and usually throw in something religous. I read somewhere that people obsessed with Homosexuality and use religion all the time are usually struggling with there own sexuality. What better way to opress it then be negative. I do pray those tortured souls come to grips with themselves.
- JW, Sandown, NH

Put it on the ballot, let the voters decide.
- Steve, Pembroke

Excellent post, J Paige. Concise, cogent, and utterly without merit. Do you really believe that people who are concerned and against gay marriage must be gay? I am sure that many who oppose gay marriage do so on religious and moral grounds. There are quite a few others, myself included, who take a more libertarian approach. I don't really care what two indivduals do in the privacy of their home. Just don't demand that I approve of it and don't as the government to sanction it.
- Frank, Londonderry

Perhaps their own hetero marriages are not that great, hence putting others down.

I'm willing to bet if gay marriage was allowed there would be less of a divorce rate among those than of 'traditional' marriages.

As long as a person marries a person, what difference does it make?

Land of the free, home of the phobic.
- Donna Raymond, Largo, FL

And if you have such an issue with homosexuals than why in god's name would you want to change our constitution to include even bringing up homosexuality?
- J Paige, Manchester

For the majority of people it's not about ones choice of living a gay lifestyle or wanting to hurt gays in any way. It's about the meaning of marriage.

I could ask of you why you feel letting the people have their say rather than having it forced on society is an issue? Or was marriage always in the constitution and meaning any two living things can get married?

Also why civil unions one year and marriage the next? Both with no say by the people.
- Deb, Derry

As is the case with all New Hampshire issues our nonrepresentatives don't want the people of New Hampshire to decide.
it was obvious in last years legislative session that the legislature does not represent the wishes of the people. And Unfortunately when we vote we have no idea what the real personal agendas are of the names we see on the ballot. People just vote by party and have no idea of who they are voting for.
- Jack, Concord

the public should have been allowed to vote on it in the first place.
- bob, auburn

I think it's time the gay rights marriage advocates shut up. The people have spoken by popular vote and they do not accept your deviant behavior as something worthy of marriage. Every time it has gone to popular vote, it gts shot down. No law that ever lets you get married, no matter how it is achieved, will ever legitimize it in the peoples mind.
- David, Merrimack

Congrats to the faithful, prayerful, hard working Maine leaders who succeeded just like those in the other 30 states.

I have read with amusement many essays and blogs written by pro-gay marriage leaders and analysts who are entirely baffled and incensed. They do not understand why gay marriage would lose (again) even in a strongly libertarian leaning, privacy respecting, small state with a history of low church attendance rates. They are bitter that their well funded, high energy activists could not leverage their lessons learned from the prior 30 states to beat down the "hateful" and "discriminatory" peasants of Maine, especially after all these years pro-gay forces have enjoyed total pwnage of public education and corporate diversity programs.

I assert two reasons in which I must make some generalizations below, but I well know there will be exceptions and situations for which my generalizations do not apply. Spare me the anecdotal case studies that do not support my statistically defensible reasons.

First, most voters are just family centric moms and dads and grandparents who know this is not about equality or (special) rights for gays. They know it is not about hate, fear, or discrimination at all. Instead, they know this about whether their children and grandkids should be exposed to a lifestyle choice that jeopardizes their comfortable family centric lifestyle and by entension the very culture of America. American family constructs have enough stress and tension on them already so exposure to even more change without benefit is anathema.

Second, pro-gay forces (with rare exceptions) refuse to discuss let alone hear our family centric point of view. They are quick to latch onto any key word or phrase uttered when we defend the family and then loudly renounce us for hate. In short they are commonly hyper-sensitive so a backlash effect occurs that motivates pro-family voters to turn out in droves.

Bottom line: For us, this is about our children, not about "rights" for gays who are (predominately) without children. I have said my piece with sincerity and honesty. I patiently await the obligatory ad hominem attacks against me mentioning "KoolAid" and "wingnuts" if not worse expletives, but my real attention will be on my family.
- Ed Holdgate, Sandown, NH

It is time to make NH normal again. End Gay Marriage. They can all move to Mass where nothing makes sense.
- Steve, Amherst

LOL J Paige, who cares?? If you don't why bother with your rant? Too funny
- Marc, Manchester

As one of the members of the House that voted against the passing of the Same Sex Marriage Bill, I was casting my vote for the majority of people that voted me in to do just that. I voted the will of the people. The proposal of a statewide referendum vote on issues where the people have a different idea on a particular law than the lawmakers they voted to represent them seems to have merit but the best vote the people can make is to know who they are voting for and put people in office that will represent them with the principals that represents the majority best.
- Rep John Hikel, Goffstown and Weare

I'm an Independent that leans Republican on most issues. However, if the Republicans in the legislature try to overturn the gay marriage law in this state then I will vote a straight Democratic ticket.

I am a fiscal conservative who believes that the government should stay out of people's wallets AND out of their bedrooms. Let gays in NH get married if that's what they want. It's their business and nobody else's.

Are you listening Republicans? Mess with the gay marriage law and watch Independents vote for your opponents. Perhaps a few more years in the minority will teach you that NH is a live and let live state. Live Free or Die applies to gays too.
- Bob Smith, Milford

Who cares, people that obsess with gay issues are obviously gay, if you're straight with a family and kids you obviously have other things to think about than gay issues. And if you have such an issue with homosexuals than why in god's name would you want to change our constitution to include even bringing up homosexuality?
- J Paige, Manchester

The arrogance of elected officials to think that they are the only ones who know what's right and wrong for our state. Just because he comes from Portsmouth, which has a more openly gay population than the rest of the state, it doesn't mean that NH slants towards acceptance of gay marriage. I say put it it out for a vote and let the chips fall where they may.. As for Rep Splaine, it's just a matter of time before his light dims on the stage of politics..
- JW, Manchester

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth has selective memory. He says that this was "carefully debated by elected legislative bodies". He forgets to mention that the conference committee that finally approved the legislation had a state senator removed from the committee because she didn't support the legislation.
They just don't get it.
So much for open democracy.
- Bob, Bedford

This is a generational issue, not a partisan one. Studies show that young Republicans generally support gay marriage, while older Democrats generally oppose it.

As an active young Republican, I believe it to be entirely consistent with my smaller-government, pro-liberty principles to ask what business it is of the state to define what is and is not marriage, beyond obviously needed protections for minors. Doesn't anyone else find it ridiculous that you need to get a license to get married? It wasn't always this way. It's an archaic holdover from the days when interracial marriage was banned.

I appreciate John Sununu's statement about not trying to repeal gay marriage, and his criticism of John Lynch is dead-on. Lynch promised one thing and did something else. Not the first time he showed a complete lack of integrity, and it won't be the last.
- Keith Murphy, Manchester, NH

The people voting against a constitutional ammendment on the ballot were voted into office by people who agree with them. That's representative democracy for you. We don't have a true, direct democracy in United States. That's how we like it. If you don't like it... move.
- Michael, Hudson