It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Hampshire House Panel Advances Gay Marriage Repeal

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

New Hampshire House Panel Advances Gay Marriage Repeal


www.advocate.com

The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 on Tuesday to advance a bill that would repeal the marriage equality law and replace it with a form of civil unions.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.boston.com
www.huffingtonpost.com



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Wow, here we go again. This is like a never-ending cycle. First they pass it, than they take it away, than they pass it again. The homophobic right wing needs to learn that this is no longer 1950 and gay is ok with most people. The only people holding gays back from marrying are Rightwingers, Religous fanatics, and rightwingers. Oh, did I forget to mention rightwingers?

Granted, this is better than before because this new repeal would only change the name, not the benifets. But still, we dont call interracial marriges "Mixed unions" do we? This is creating a social stigma that the LGBT community does not need right now. As it is 30% of the USA is highly dissaproving of out activities.

We have tried seperate but equal before.


It didn't work out.

Also, read the links in the bottom, especcialy the second one. You'll see just how much these people will do to prevent our freedoms.

www.advocate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I like how many ATSers strongly defend the separation of church and state (which they should because it's a dangerous combination) yet they believe the religious definition of marriage should be our state's definition of marriage...

Never mind, the fact that there are Christian churches willing to do gay marriages anyway. Atheists can get married, so those that defend it from a religious/moral standpoint are absurd for believing gays should not.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


So much for the protection of the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I still have not found the fine print in the Declaration of Independance where that line is found that states except for gay people.

I think we should get a bill in the US Congress banning all marriage, gay straight what have you, until such time those trying to claim the moral highground understand the fact that they arent God and as such dont get to judge others on Gods behalf.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
the back and forth with it..

reminds me of all those closet gay repubs!

until they climax then they change their mind to being straight and go home to their wives, rinse, and repeat.

reality is that those against gays/marriage via religion, morale, etc are insecure about their own masculinity/sexuality and want to punish others for it



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Interestingly, the article doesn't state WHY they would want to repeal their marriage equality laws. No one can EVER give real reasons that gay people shouldn't have access to marriage. How can you

But fortunately, from the OP source:



Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, has vowed to veto the repeal attempt.


But there's more...



Of course, the worst part of the bill is that it repeals marriage equality, and actually takes rights from NH citizens. But there is so much more in the bill to hate. And maybe even some to...well...laugh at.
...
Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

So not only will this bill marginalize our lesbian and gay families, but also families with single parents, childless couples, infertile couples, adoptive parents, foster parents, and loving stepparents. If your family does not look like their narrow picture of what a family is, watch out.


Blue Hampshire

Since when can children ONLY be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples??????? This is science, people. There are several ways children can be conceived. Anyone heard of a turkey baster? A gay man's sperm (and a lesbian's egg) works JUST as well as a straight person's.


These Republicans need to get OUT of other people's personal relationships and deal with what's missing in their own.

There's a lot more about the Amendment HERE



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I like the "civil unions" thing being available to any adults wishing to enter into the contract.

That's all marriage is anyway. Anyone cohabitating or sharing resources should be able to incorporate and reap the benefits.

Procreation and sexual identity or preference have nothing to do with a tax benefit.

State sanctioned "marriage" should be abolished. Incorporation or partnerships is what it really is and we only need concern ourselves with that because of the IRS.

The only thing keeping me from marrying my partner of nearly a decade is the fact that I have to ask the governments permission and pay a fee. Principle wont let me swallow that pill. Stop calling it marriage and let me file to incorporate then I'll be more than happy to get that tax benefit.

Calling it "marriage" is ridiculous.
edit on 27-10-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You know I agree with you in principle, that the state shouldn't even be involved in marriage. BUT, a complete overhaul on a system that this society has been using for centuries now isn't going to be given up or changed that easily.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Calling it "marriage" is ridiculous.


Calling my marriage a "marriage" isn't ridiculous just because we can't have our own kids and don't believe in religious stuff. We are still human beings who are in a loving relationship that involves a contract with the state. We are married and NO ONE can define that marriage for us.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


What's the overhaul?

Get married in a church.

Get incorporated with the state.

Most nobody would bother to realize any change has even taken place seeing how many non-religious people get married in churches everyday. They do it because they think it's the thing to do not because they've been suffering 3 hours in a pew every Sunday for 20 years.

At their root all marriage laws are born of hate, bigotry and even eugenics. To happily parade down to city hall and support the idea that the government controlling breeding is not only acceptable but worth funding with a fee in hand is monstrous.
edit on 27-10-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I want to be married and all that that means. I don't want to be incorporated. If I did, I would be. But Incorporation is NOT what I want. I want to be married to the person I love. It's a societal institution that I chose to enter into. Granted, if I had been thinking 20 years ago as I think today, I would NOT have gotten married by the state. But there's NOTHING stopping you from getting 'married' to your GF. Go out in the woods like we did and recite some vows. You won't be involved with the state and you can be married. On your own terms. No state involvement.

The overhaul would involve people like me who don't go near a church but want to be married.

Besides, some churches voluntarily marry gay people... Changing the laws is NOT going to keep the gay out of marriage.


.
edit on 10/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We dont want "marriage" in some spiritual sense. We want our tax breaks for cohabitation.

We want a heterosexual civil union. No state-sanctioned bigotry or eugenic participation. Cohabiting under one roof tax benefit.

So either the tax benefit is extended to all cohabitating people regardless of gender, sexual identity, number or relation or the benefit for cohabitation is wiped from the books altogether.

Cohabitation is cohabitation. The purposes of the benefit remains the same.

Church, religion or vows in the woods has nothing to do with the IRS or the state.

The longer people keep up this mock fight of "gay marriage" the longer the state gets to wield bigotry and hate as a tool.

Why assume I'm trying to keep the "gay" out of marriage? I thought you were smarter than that. I absolutely could not care less what anyone wants to do with anyone else. I care about the state being inconsistent and ripping millions of people off in the name of some manufactured institution that has no business extending beyond the parties involved.
edit on 27-10-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   


The longer people keep up this mock fight of "gay marriage" the longer the state gets to wield bigotry and hate as a tool.


This is not a mock fight.
Turning civil unions into a marriage is the first step to all around equality.
If there is no longer the idea in people that gays are weird, wrong, unnatural(, which is perpetuated by the fact that gays can not get married, and our activities are not sanctioned by the government, whereas a heterosexual couple IS.) than you will no longer have as many gay bashings, not getting a job because your gay, ect. Maybe even the religous people would give not my generation, but the nexts's next a break.

However, if we make it so gays are "Seperate but equal," well, thats never going to work.
Civil union would be the first step.
Than you may see LGBT churches spring up
And than LGBT schools
and than LGBT Resorts and housing complexes

You get the picture. Marrige is not very important in its self, but it is a huge step either way for gay rights.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
What a bunch of mooks.

Don't you love seeing religious and personal bias being mixed in with the law? Isn't nice to have conservative values shoved down your throat?

It's a sad thing when people don't think that other people deserve the same rights they enjoy. Especially when it's something that is completely seperated from their lives and effects them in NO possible way.

Ohh well, that's what happens I suppose when you let the government into your house and tell you what you can't and can do with your life.

Enjoy your really really really really really really really big company.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkredfish
You get the picture. Marrige is not very important in its self, but it is a huge step either way for gay rights.


That's thinking small.

Leaving it up to government to accept what people do, going so far as to beg government to accept what people do, puts all the power in governments hand.

"Winning" gay marriage just enforces the idea that government can dictate tolerance and proclaim one set superior over another set.

In the end the group in question may get their "marriage" or whatever the cause at the time is but the winner is still government sanction bigotry.

As though every homophobe would just say "gee, the government approves so I'll just turn my hate off like a switch"?

The only real way to win is to get government out of it altogether.

Government decree and legislation doesnt change society. Society changes government.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Well this is retarded. I wish the republican party should just give up on harassing gay people. Its 2011 and this is still an issue. I though by now we would be discussing the moral issue of whether or not its okay to date an alien.


Look, people shouldn't care what 2 or 5 consenting adults, a donkey and 1 or 3 dwarfs do in the privacy of their home in front of a video camera. Who cares about the leather whips, and sure those mask are freaky looking but its none of you're business.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
We dont want "marriage" in some spiritual sense. We want our tax breaks for cohabitation.


Then you DO want the state involved. I don't know if civil unions offer the same tax breaks as marriage, but you can most likely get a civil union if you want to. My point is that we should all have the CHOICE. You know... that freedom thing again. A person should be able to choose their partner AND choose whether to be married, unionized or incorporated...



We want a heterosexual civil union. No state-sanctioned bigotry or eugenic participation. Cohabiting under one roof tax benefit.


Depending on where you live, you may be able to have it. Civil Unions Aren't Just for Gay Couples



Why assume I'm trying to keep the "gay" out of marriage?


I didn't assume that. And it's not because I'm smart (or not smart), it's because I pay attention to your posts.
I was addressing the desire by some people to keep gay people from marrying in the church. That seems to be a driving force behind this made-up political issue.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


There's no hetero civil unions here. The creation of such a thing is in the bill that is the subject of the thread.
Though once I am dead my "spouse" can claim common-law marriage for probate in this state.

I'd rather have the government cease any and all involvement with partnerships whether they're marriages, unions, or incorporations. But to do so the government would have to stop playing games with taxation and that's not going to stop anytime soon. If there is a tax benefit to cohabitating I want it. So the gov can either give it to me or stop giving it to everyone else.

Whichever way you look at it government sanctioned unions are a bad thing. They started as a way to regulate breeding and they only exist today as a tax scheme.


The new civil union would permit any two people older than 18 to enter into a contract that carries with it benefits such as hospital visitation, property and child support obligations.
All it's missing is joint filing privileges but that is dictated by the federal government and the IRS so the state of NH doesnt have much say in that matter.

To reiterate I'd rather none of this state sanctioned pairing exist at all.


edit on 27-10-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If there is a tax benefit to cohabitating I want it. So the gov can either give it to me or stop giving it to everyone else.


You know you can't get something from the state without jumping through their hoops. You want a driver's license? You have to go to the DMV and fill out and sign papers to become a licensed driver. You want to vote? You have to register and prove you live here. You want a tax break for cohabitating? You have to go to the state and fill out and sign papers to become a 'married person'.

What's wrong with having the choice?



Whichever way you look at it government sanctioned unions are a bad thing. They started as a way to regulate breeding and they only exist today as a tax scheme.


Regardless how they started, it's an option many people want to have. Why take it away from everyone, just because you don't like it?



To reiterate I'd rather none of this state sanctioned pairing exist at all.


If it's not imposing anything on you, I don't understand why you don't want others to have the option.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



As though every homophobe would just say "gee, the government approves so I'll just turn my hate off like a switch"?


No, but their children would grow up with more equality than we have, and unless they taught it very strictly (Like they do with blacks in the south still) the children would gain the opinion that It was ok.

Personally I think if gays where seen as normal and equal, not to be made fun of at all, a lot more people would be bisexual. But thats just my opinion.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
New Hampshire Group begins Anti-repeal Push



A bipartisan group of New Hampshire residents, business owners and civic leaders announced a grass-roots campaign Thursday to stop lawmakers from repealing the state law allowing gays to marry.

Standing Up for New Hampshire Families leaders told reporters that Republican lawmakers should focus on helping businesses create jobs and not on repealing the gay marriage law that has been in effect almost two years.
...
The proposed civil unions law would be open to any two adults and would let anyone refuse to recognize the unions. It also would allow anyone to discriminate against such couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.


Hopefully, this monstrosity wont get past the people!
It's legislated discrimination!




edit on 10/29/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join