New Hampshire!

[3113]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire legislators approved a measure Wednesday that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign it later in the afternoon. He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House -- where the outcome was more in doubt -- followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote. ''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,'' Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.

New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1.

Full story here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

Which is already spelled out by "separation of church and state." He was just grandstanding.

But YEAH! Open another bottle of bubbly!

 

[3113]

Which is already spelled out by "separation of church and state."

But the state has mixed itself up with the church in making religious leaders legally able to marry people, no?

 

[Stella_Omega]

But the state has mixed itself up with the church in making religious leaders legally able to marry people, no?

I see the next logical step, there.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Which is already spelled out by "separation of church and state." He was just grandstanding.

But YEAH! Open another bottle of bubbly!

I have to disagree with Stella on this. That had to be put in the law to pull the rug out from under the argument that caused a number of people to back Prop 8. Making the right of refusal part of the law protects churches from the (rather remote, IMO) possibility of being sued for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony. It may sound silly, but it was needed.

 

[JagFarlane]

I have to disagree with Stella on this. That had to be put in the law to pull the rug out from under the argument that caused a number of people to back Prop 8. Making the right of refusal part of the law protects churches from the (rather remote, IMO) possibility of being sued for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony. It may sound silly, but it was needed.

Yes it was, and even the writers of the original bill admitted it was a good addition and that they supported changing it, even though it delayed the passing.
-chuckles- Well there goes NY's chance to be #6...will they be #7 or will NJ beat them?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have to disagree with Stella on this. That had to be put in the law to pull the rug out from under the argument that caused a number of people to back Prop 8. Making the right of refusal part of the law protects churches from the (rather remote, IMO) possibility of being sued for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony. It may sound silly, but it was needed.

Yeah, you are probably right. In fact, I totally agree that you are correct, both you and 3113. Lots of silly things are needed. Like the "this plastic bag is not a toy' labels...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah, you are probably right. In fact, I totally agree that you are correct, both you and 3113. Lots of silly things are needed. Like the "this plastic bag is not a toy' labels...

Sad, ain't it!

 

[Safe_Bet]

I have to disagree with Stella on this. That had to be put in the law to pull the rug out from under the argument that caused a number of people to back Prop 8. Making the right of refusal part of the law protects churches from the (rather remote, IMO) possibility of being sued for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony. It may sound silly, but it was needed.

It all is fine with me. Let every church, that wants to, keep their rosaries, magical underwear, blessed chicken feet and/or their secret/sacred/"special" rites and ceremonies. They have no business in government's obligation to EVERYONE to LEGALLY, EQUALLY and UNBIASEDLY grant marriage CONTRACTS, in the first place!

 

[3113]

blessed chicken feet

Hey! You leave my religion out of this! Or...wait...is that my lunch?

 

[rgraham666]

Is there some reason it can't be both?

 

[3113]

Is there some reason it can't be both?

hmmmm. Nope. I worship chicken soup

 

[Safe_Bet]

hmmmm. Nope. I worship chicken soup

You know that RC host thingy always kinda looked like matzo anyways...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You know that RC host thingy always kinda looked like matzo anyways...

Tastes like it, too. The only way to get the blasted thing down is to soak it in good red wine . . . or mediocre red wine, depending on how cheap the alter guild is feeling.

 

[impressive]

 

[TE999]

Once again, the original colonies lead the league in being socially and morally progressive...how far they've come from the old days of 'Banned in Boston'.

 

[oggbashan]

Once again, the original colonies lead the league in being socially and morally progressive...how far they've come from the old days of 'Banned in Boston'.

But the country the colonists came from is far ahead of them...

Og

 

[JagFarlane]

But the country the colonists came from is far ahead of them...

Og

Depends solely upon opinion.

 

[oggbashan]

Depends solely upon opinion.

Not for rights for gay people. Civil Partnerships

Extract from a link from that:
A compelling illustration of social attitudes towards homosexuality in the United Kingdom was provided in May 2007 in a survey by YouGov. The poll indicated that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 — outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation — was supported by 90 per cent of UK citizens. It also showed some very positive public perceptions of gay people in particular. Furthermore, a survey carried out in October 2008 by The Observer affirmed that the majority of Britons — 55 percent—support gay marriage.[1]

We may be far behind in other aspects.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Let me remind the Yankee-centrists that Virginia was colonized 13 years before Massachusetts, and Florida for over a century.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Be happy

Just my 2 cents worth...

If you're not gay, you shouldn't get married.

If you're not gay when you marry, then what will you be like after you've been married for 10 or 20 years.

I remember when I was married so long ago. I was gay, happy, and excited. I don't understand why we need a law that stipulates the mood you must have to marry.

It's simple. If you aren't gay about the man or women you are marrying, don't get married. If you are gay about the man or women you are marrying, get married.

Marriages won't work unless you go in there with a gay attitude.

You know, if more people were gay, we wouldn't need all those pills.

Take my advice...be happy...act gay.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

hahahahahaha

I was reading a Willa Cather story the other day, and the older female character was advising her young male friend to delay marriage, BE GAY AS LONG AS YOU CAN.

Maybe SAFE BET and the others are experiencing arrested development.