3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal

[Ian David]

3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal
By NORMA LOVE, Associated Press Writer Norma Love, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jan 20, 3:27 am ET

CONCORD, N.H. – Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents are asking a House committee to repeal the law and let voters amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The House Judiciary Committee was holding hearings Wednesday on the two measures, which many observers expect the House to reject when they are brought to the floor in the next few weeks. Opponents know their chances of success are slim, but they are looking to the November election in hopes Republicans will regain control of the Statehouse and succeed then in repealing the law.

Right now, Democrats are firmly in charge and appear eager to dispose of controversial measures early in the session to avoid lingering debate in an election year. Gay marriage opponents know that and are focusing on a bigger prize: voter sympathy.

<snip>

State Rep. David Bates, a Republican from Windham, is organizing the petition effort to put gay marriage before town voters. He said Tuesday that petitions have been certified in 108 towns. He expects petitions to be completed by a Feb. 2 deadline in about 150 of New Hampshire's more than 200 towns that hold meetings each spring. Petitions must be signed by 25 registered voters in the town to be put on the agenda.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_nh



See also:



New Hampshire's Statewide LGBT Education & Advocacy Organization

Repeal effort

The NH House Judiciary Committee will hold public hearing on two pieces of legislation on January 20th. We do not believe either bill will pass. Please contact your Representatives and ask them to oppose all repeal efforts.

CACR 28 (Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution): "Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage." To pass, a constitutional amendment needs the support of three-fifths of both the House and the Senate, and then approval by two-thirds of state voters. Similar amendments were defeated in 2006 (Republican leadership), 2007 (Democratic leadership).

HB 1590: Repeal marriage equality and civil unions



Local repeal efforts

Let NH Vote: Conservative Political Action Committee effort to raise money for November elections and pressure for passage of CACR 28 through non-binding town meeting resolutions stating: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines “marriage”. These are non-binding resolutions and do not impact the marriage equality law.

Please check with your town clerk and notify us at [e-mail] if your town has a repeal warrant article.

More:
http://www.nhftm.org/

Help stop the repeal effort: http://www.nhftm.org/action/index.html

[Pab Sungenis]

1. I called it.

A while back there was a poll asking how many more states would allow gay marriage over the next ten years. I predicted -2, with us losing New Hampshire and Iowa.

We're going to lose New Hampshire now. Iowa won't be far behind.

[customerserviceguy]

2. There's only one place that any semblance of marriage equality

has been approved by voters, and that's Washington State. They were smart enough to phase it in gradually, and they included a provision that those over 62 of opposite sex can have domestic partnership if they choose (to avoid losing Social Security benefits). That has been pretty effective at keeping the oldest generation from taking its prejudices to the ballot box.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. I'm waiting for Chris Christie to dismantle civil unions here in New Jersey.

It's been on his "to-do" list, and now that he's in Trenton it will probably happen. Especially with Trojan-Horse Democrats like Jeff Van Drew carrying his water.

[customerserviceguy]

8. He may just settle

for the fact that true equal marriage lost last week in the NJ legislature.

[ShadowLiberal]

9. He can't, unless he passes a constitutional amendment, he'd be violating a state supreme court order

Besides, even with Corzine's recent losses the state legislature's not going to be approving a gay marriage ban.

As for New Hampshire, nothing will disgust me more then seeing people who voted for marriage equality voting to repeal marriage equality just because they're scared. If they were smart then the morons would realize that doing that would only leave everyone on all sides pissed off at them, and hurt them even more.

I don't think we have to worry about a gay marriage repeal in New Hampshire, at least as long as governor Lynch is in office, he's already said weeks ago that he'd veto a bill to repeal gay marriage. So either way the legislature is going to need an unrealistically high number to repeal gay marriage till Lynch is gone, numbers that just won't happen after how big of a margin gay marriage passed earlier.

Besides that, look at all the states that voted on gay marriage bans to be added to be added to their state constitutions, you'll find quite a few states where the ban passed with less then a 2/3's majority, it would have be a year that's unbelievably toxic to democrats for support for gay marriage to not hit at least the 34% percent mark on an election day in New Hampshire.

[sui generis]

4. repeal . . . AND civil unions

no this isn't just about marriage . . .

What on earth are Americans in 20 years going to make of this? How utterly shameful -

Marriage Equality WILL pass, sooner or later. DADT WILL be overturned, sooner or later and we'll be looking back on these times kind of like some people view the Dixie Democrat south of the 50's and 60's.

[cecilfirefox]

5. NH scares me, but if we can keep at least one houses in the legislature

we'll be all right. Iowa, is much the same. So long as we hold onto the State Senate(Which is disproportionately Democratic) we'll be fine. Some of these potential gains, still a long ways away, can potentially be overturned or inhibited in the next Presidential election. Keep in mind that if they just overturn the law Democrats can potentially regain their majorities, assume they loose it, and just re-pass it.

We'll see. Just fight hard like hell and hope for the best.

[cecilfirefox]

6. Looked up some info, the state house needs 240 votes to approve a constitional amendment,

The Senate needs 14.4, either 14 or 15.

In the House Democrats have 225 to Republicans 175. In the Senate they have a majority of 14 to a 10 seat Republican minority. It's possible they could win back the state house and still not have the votes to pass it. In the session where it was legalized 198 legislatures voted for marriage equality in the state house with a 176 against. They'd have to make major gains to get to 240 votes. As long we hold strong, minimize any loss, and lobby the hell out of our legislatures we should be all right.

There is a method to enact a constitutional convent, but I actually think the legislature wouldn't do that since it flays open the entirety of the constitution- not just one potential amendment.

[cecilfirefox]

7. Ballot amendment questions in NH need 2/3's to pass.

After a proposed amendment has been placed on the ballot in NH it needs 2/3 approval from the voters to become law. If that were the case in every state where same-sex marriage has been beaten back then it would have never been banned in California or repealed in Maine. If the near split of opinion holds we would most certainly win if it was on the ballot.

2/3 in that state would be, if my math is correct <_<, 66.6% of the vote in the affirmative.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

Retroactive laws. Like invalidating previously legal gay marriages. That's a problem with the CA referendum.

The courts are gonna eventually rule for gay marriage all over the country, and it cannot be stopped.

Five constitutional reasons:
1)Ex post facto laws
2)Full faith and credit clause
3)Privileges and immunities clause
4)Due process clause of 14th amendment
5)Equal protection clause of 14th amendment