Surprise! NH House Rejects Marriage Bill

There's a bit of backstory here, but the short version is that the New Hampshire legislature passed a marriage law last week which would allow gay marriages, but the Governor vetoed it because it did not contain strong enough religious conscience exceptions. He sent the law back with a suggested exception broader than the one they already had.

It was widely expected to pass and be signed into law by the end of the week. However, the New Hampshire House just rejected the new version of the law. This version was blocked by mostly party-line vote 188-186.

State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be "bullied" by the governor.
Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.

Vaillancourt relies on the latest talking point of radical gay marriage supporters: that providing targetted exemptions for religious conscious exemptions codifies discrimination. Let's be clear, though. The Constitution does not prohibit most kinds of discrimination where government imposition would interfere with the freedom of religion. The First Amendment prohibits that type of government action. Vaillancourt may wish otherwise, but no religious institution can be forced to perform or solemnize a gay marriage (or really any marriage) that would violate their religious beliefs.

The bill now goes to committee.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:52 PM

Comments

1 "The First Amendment prohibits that type of government action. Vaillancourt may wish otherwise, but no religious institution can be forced to perform or solemnize a gay marriage (or really any marriage) that would violate their religious beliefs."

Really? Despite all the penumbras of emanations in the constitution?

But it is legal to force eHarmony to have a gay site, to sue a fertility doctor who refuses to impregnate you or your lesbian partner, a photographer who refuses to photograph your gay wedding or a relationship counselor who refers you to another conselor because they don't support gay marriage?

The very fact that gay rights advocates have a problem with a law that reinforces what you claim is already a constitutional guarantee shows how flimsy that 'promise' is and what the ultimate agenda of the more vocal gay rights advocates is.

Posted by: Bald Ninja at May 20, 2009 05:59 PM (4pdbX)

2 Vallaincourt's an oddball. He's a "fiscally conservative, socially libertarian" type. At one point in the '90s, IIRC, he was a Democrat.

Posted by: Robert_Paulson at May 20, 2009 06:02 PM (zjgCD)

3 Speaking as a resident, I'm pretty shocked at this sudden turn of events--guess the gay lobby (and, more specifically, the mutants at the inaptly named Human Rights Campaign) better get their checkbooks back out and add to the $150k or so they already spent trying to buy 'yes' votes on this. (Only, this time, they'll have to, err, grease some (R)s in the process if they want to get over this, um, hump.)

Posted by: ECM at May 20, 2009 06:08 PM (q3V+C)

4 Maybe that peter-puffer Vaillancourt should take a course in Constitutional law before he opens his pretty mouth.

Posted by: GarandFan at May 20, 2009 06:24 PM (C3okI)

5 So, who voted yes and who voted no? And are the 188 the No? Don't you normally report the Yes votes first, even when it loses?

Posted by: Greg Q at May 20, 2009 06:42 PM (87k2j)

6 This result is pretty strong evidence that for a lot of people gay marriage is just part of a larger scheme to destroy Christianity.

Posted by: Nate at May 20, 2009 07:52 PM (y7kWg)

7 Not that I think it's really possible to destroy Christianity, mind you; still, its "official" message can be diluted and its influence in general society can be eroded.

Posted by: Nate at May 20, 2009 07:58 PM (y7kWg)

8 I do not support same sex marriage, but i am having a hard time supporting goverment sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman and being able to deny this to same sex couples. I favor the government getting out of the marriage business. I am not really sure why they are there.

Is it just for the sake of raising children?

To me, time is on the same sex marriage side of the debate.

The religious exception seems like a perfectly reasonable democratic compromise. Why does HRC oppose this?

Posted by: wtf capital investments at May 20, 2009 08:15 PM (XYBSD)

_{Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to
clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed,
adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written
into state law.}

Apparently punishign people for their religious beliefs is more important than so-called marriage equality.

_{Vallaincourt's an oddball. He's a "fiscally conservative, socially
libertarian" type. At one point in the '90s, IIRC, he was a Democrat.}

And not big on freedom, apparently.

Posted by: Michael Ejercito at May 20, 2009 09:29 PM (G1ysT)

Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

Posted by: royalmewigs at May 20, 2009 09:32 PM (8KZ/I)

11 It should not have been that close.

Posted by: Cowboy at May 20, 2009 09:48 PM (Gclmc)

12 Speaking of which, where can I get a lace wig. I've been looking all over.

Posted by: trainer at May 20, 2009 09:52 PM (yCWYQ)

Posted by: samchan at May 20, 2009 09:55 PM (z96UH)

14 There is no option but to obey the queer agenda. Bend over and accept it.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 20, 2009 10:11 PM (B8gqF)

15 All of my slight concerns and empathies for teh gheys ended when they started getting all militant. I do feel somewhat sorry for the ones who don't go out acting like freaks, however, they have not been trying to get the radicals, the perez hilton's to sit down and STFU! That crap doesn't win anyone to their side. Nor should it, it is just a ghey mafia.

Posted by: di butler (no longer mentioning her tits) at May 20, 2009 10:23 PM (oNWMY)

16 wtf capital investments at May 20, 2009 08:15 PM (XYBSD) -

Is it just for the sake of raising children?

Nope.

It's simply a "money grab".

After all, you don't have to have any children to receive the 1100+ "privileges" granted to married people.

I'm a never married 44 yr old hetero-male- no children.

My paternal grandfather died at 54(stroke-diabetes/kidney failure). My maternal grandfather died at 53(heart attack). My father died at 41(pancreatic cancer).

I would love to have a "widow" who could collect on the money I've paid into Socialist InSecurity when I die at 57 (approx. - I am a pack/day smoker who loves the Val-U-Rite).

If I was married to someone who never worked a day in his/her life, he/she would be entitled to 1/2 of my Socialist InSecurity benefit. Yet, every dollar I've paid for the last 29 years is just going to somebody else...

I would love to be able to transfer my property to a "partner" without going through "probate".

What is the "marriage exemption" on the "death tax" worth these days?

I would love to add my current sex partner to my employer paid health plan and thus receive an (untaxed) $8-$10K rise in my income.

I would love to receive a lower tax rate on my "household income".

I would love to not have to pay a lawyer to establish a medical "Power of Attorney". (BTW, can anyone find a story in the last 10 years where even one hospital has denied 'visiting rights' to a gay partner?)

<i> (etc. ad nauseum)</i>

Posted by: fletch at May 20, 2009 10:50 PM (LOdua)

17 The government is not in the 'marriage business', and it isn't about money. Marriage- from the point of view of the government (and thereby the people as a whole, as opposed to individually- then it's about love, and I usually find myself explaining this to the 'the government should let me love who I like' types) is strictly about maintaining society. The nuclear family has proven, over the millenia, to be the most effective means of generating the next generation, and sustaining a culture through procreation. Therefore, the government has not only an interest, but a responsibility to encourage and maintain marriage primarily as a tool for breeding and raising children. This, in turn, means that gay relationships, are useless to this end, and as such, shouldn't be particularly encouraged or cultivated. Sure, go pole smoke if you like, I don't care; have a marriage ceremony if you like, call your partner your wife/husband, whatever, but just don't ask for government sanction of your relationship- that's not what it's about. It's not about who you love, or even who I love, from the point of view of government. Also, the fact that some married couples won't have children is irrelevant, the possibility is there, and the vast, vast majority in fact do produce children, and so are seen as a value to society in the big picture. Of course, one proof that it isn't about money is that is many states you can do a civil union and take care of most of that, or even without that convenince, you could grant each other power of attorney, and cover most of the bases of what marriage gets you, as a couple.

Bottom line is that it isn't about love, relationships, civil rights, or money- it's about the continuity of society, and gay relationships are irrelevant to that.

Posted by: douglas at May 21, 2009 02:40 AM (20QoQ)

18 The religious exception seems like a perfectly reasonable democratic compromise. Why does HRC oppose this?

Because how else would the more vocal activists be able to ultimately shut down churches and/or prosecute clergy/religious organizations for discrimination? That's the ultimate goal here - not "equality" under the law.

But the systematic, intentional, and targeted desire to strip the First Amendment of any genuine meaning.

Then when people ask me why I so vocally oppose gay "marriage", this is why. Because gay "marriage" will most certainly take away my right to free exercise of religion.

Posted by: Amy P. at May 21, 2009 09:34 AM (511YP)

19 Oh, you said "solemnize." I read that wrong the first time through.

Posted by: arminius at May 21, 2009 09:38 AM (CX71c)

20 The religious exception seems like a perfectly reasonable democratic compromise. Why does HRC oppose this?

Posted by: wtf capital investments at May 20, 2009 08:15 PM (XYBSD)

They are against any exemptions because it they establish legal arguments. Why should priests get and exemption and not the general public? You can have exemptions if your goal is to force universal acceptance. The insane idea of these exemptions is that they are even needed. Not only priests do religion and churches are not merely buildings or a group of buildings. Ordinary people have the right to practice their religion and they are part of the church. For the state to say someone's religious rights can be curtailed if they dangerous is fine. Performing an abortion? Dispensing a pill? Acknowledging a same-sex union as marriage? These are all elective decisions. A person's right to the freedom to practice their religion should not be trumped by what someone else freely chooses to do.

Posted by: Rocks at May 21, 2009 09:45 AM (Q1lie)

21 They are against any exemptions because it will establish legal arguments. Why should priests get an exemption and not the general public? You can't have exemptions if your goal is to force universal acceptance. The insane idea of these exemptions is that they are even needed. Not only priests do religion and churches are not merely buildings or a group of buildings. Ordinary people have the right to practice their religion and they are part of the church. For the state to say someone's religious rights can be curtailed if they dangerous is fine. Performing an abortion? Dispensing a pill? Acknowledging a same-sex union as marriage? These are all elective decisions. A person's right to the freedom to practice their religion should not be trumped by what someone else freely chooses to do.

Posted by: Rocks at May 21, 2009 09:47 AM (Q1lie)

22 Yeah. Insisting on religious freedom is bullying. Up is down. Black is white. Good is evil.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 21, 2009 01:11 PM (PQY7w)

23 Easy for you to say.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 21, 2009 04:38 PM (PQY7w)

24 Louis Vuitton Handbag Louis Vuitton Handbags
Gucci Shoes Louis Vuitton Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Handbag
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Louis Vuitton Gucci Shoes
Gucci Shoes Gucci Shoes
Louis Vuitton

Posted by: quirky at June 11, 2009 04:02 AM (vqjLV)

25 Good morning. The scornful nostril and the high head gather not the odors that lie on the track of truth.
I am from Zaire and also now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "F days, meaning buy one get one free, easily doubling your chances to.The who has issued non pharma measures that can be taken to slow the spread of the virus."

Thanks for the help

, Ginger.

Posted by: Chester at August 02, 2009 04:28 AM (O7ANZ)

Posted by: Aoobi at October 19, 2009 11:42 PM (7Jo7r)

27 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 11:23 AM (9oMrs)

28 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 09:27 AM (8kvkz)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 11:44 AM (pgfU2)

30 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 01:37 PM (c6EK2)

Posted by: Aoobi at October 31, 2009 02:30 AM (UEQMB)

32 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 02:56 PM (LHCCE)

33 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

Posted by: reviewups at November 06, 2009 01:37 AM (XxrVz)

34 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 09:17 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: reviewups at November 10, 2009 02:31 AM (UHjri)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 02:30 AM (IeIJx)

37 Hi! yOGjTD

Posted by: YkwNVl at November 12, 2009 05:52 PM (L37bi)

38 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 01:40 AM (APB+g)

39 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 05:11 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: nike shoes at November 17, 2009 05:33 AM (DuP3Z)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 06:40 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:53 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 12:19 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 07:55 AM (C/zDM)

45 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 18, 2009 08:55 AM (WPYlQ)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0444 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0068 seconds, 54 records returned.
Page size 70 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.