3 weeks after gay marriage law, New Hampshire takes up repeal

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. — Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents today asked a House committee to repeal the law.

"I'm here today about Adam and Eve," state Rep. Alfred Baldasaro testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican and prime sponsor of legislation to repeal the law, and other gay marriage opponents argued the unions defy nature.

... Janson Wu, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and other gay marriage advocates argue the size of New Hampshire's Legislature makes it one of the most representative democratic bodies in the world.

"New Hampshire realizes it is just wrong to vote on people's rights," Wu said.


Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14229883

[Unvanguard]

1. They've been trying this for months. Nothing has come of it so far. n/t

[BR_Parkway]

2. Oh fuck you people - completely. This constant bringing up people's

rights for a vote - I really want to amend the Constitution to make the practice of religion illegal, punishable by stoning. And that's a shame, because religion is comforting and helpful to some, but these bigots will just keep on pushing until there's a backlash

[TrogL]

3. So here we go with the "against nature" bit again

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

What part of gay vultures, emus, apes, orangutangs, sheep, dogs, rotifers and mandrills, beetles, penguins and possibly otters as well as Bonobo monkeys, walruses, African elephants, mountain zebras, geese and dolphins do they not understand.

I had two gay budgees. There was a female in the cage and they ignored her.

[KansDem]

4. "...defy nature"

Really? What's "natural" to these people? As I recall from my student days, the Enlightenment came about due to the emphasis given "nature."

“Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may
do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are
these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and
its officials may do. How much room do individual rights leave for the
state?” 1 As is well-known, Robert Nozick’s reply to this question, in
Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), is that any state more extensive than a
minimal one will fail to be justified except under special circumstances
(for instance, the rectification of serious wrongs). Some think that even
minimal states will fail to be justified given the rights that we have. It may
be that the constraints of justice leave no room for the state’s exercise of
its functions or even for its existence. If we possess (virtually) indefeasible
natural rights to life, liberty, and possessions, then it is doubtful that the
state may do very much, if anything, without violating our rights. This is
Nozick’s challenge.

NATURAL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL LEGITIMACY

And if I recall correctly from earlier readings, the response of "Naturally" as an answer based on reason came about during this time. For example:
If 2% of the population gain control of 98% of the wealth, it could lead to fascism"
Naturally...

I'd like for Mr. Baldasaro to explain what he means by "natural."

[bowens43]

5. when did 'defying nature' become a crime

not that this does defy nature but how did defying nature become a measure of legality? Heavier than air flying machines defy nature, genetic engineering defies nature, dams defy nature.........

[Odin2005]

6. It's a fallacious philosophical justification for bigotry.

The Is = Ought Fallacy.

[shadowknows69]

7. "I'm here today about Adam and Eve,"

Ok, any representative that starts a debate that way should be instantly fired.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. Definitely.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. What part of "ex post facto laws are unconstitutional" don't they get???

:wtf:

[M155Y_A1CH]

10. k&r

:kick:

[and-justice-for-all]

11. "I'm here today about Adam and Eve,"??? A fairytale?!? LOL...nt

[CTLawGuy]

12. Live free or die

unless I don't approve...

[complain jane]

13. I think what they mean is this

Gay marriage goes against nature if you're a conservative because if you're a conservative, what's "natural" is closeted homophobic freaks cheating on their opposite-gender spouses with anonymous same-sex individuals in bathrooms AKA Larry Craig.

The kind of conservative who gets showered and dressed to show up to protest gay marriage most likely can't wrap their head around a happy, healthy, monogamous relationship with another consenting adult in the first place.

[ashw]

14. Londonderry Support

http://www.londonderryprotectsequality.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Londonderry-NH/Londonderry-Protects-Marriage-Equality/310360678311?ref=ts

[Betty]

15. separation of church and state

apparently the asshole state rep has never heard of it. Why not just make fundamental Christianity a state requirement for all?