New Hampshire Senate Refuses to Let the People Vote on Gay Marriage
Today we learned a little something about the Democrats in the New Hampshire Senate; they don’t give a damn about the voters. By a 14-10 vote along strict party lines the Democrats blocked a bid to add a referendum question to the ballot in 2010 about gay marriage. The question was to be simply stated as to not be misleading, “should the Legislature amend New Hampshire law to permit two people of the same sex to be married to each other?” Yet the voters were denied to let their voices be heard at the ballot box.
The New Hampshire constitution does not allow binding referendum questions, this would have been non-binding. In other words a poll, a chance to gauge how the voters of New Hampshire feel. No harm would have been done no matter how the vote turned out and no matter which side of the issue that you are on.
There has been heated debate in New Hampshire on the issue and it was suggested that the issue be allowed to cool off until after the 2010 election when the people would have a chance to voice their position. This cooling off period would not have hurt gay couples in New Hampshire as the state’s civil union law gives gay couples equal marital rights.
Polls show the state deeply divided on the issue, somewhere around the 50-50 range. It seems like a non-binding question would have helped lawmakers decide where to go on this issue. There are only to scenarios that I can see for the reason why the state Democrats are opposed to letting the voters be heard.
One; the polls are being fudged to show stronger support for gay marriage then what actually exists in New Hampshire and the Democrats are feeling the pressure from the large amounts of special interest money that has been pouring into the state by gay activists. They are trying to drum up false support.
Or two; Democrats feel that the Republican party in the state is reeling and disorganized. They still feel that conservatives are still disgruntled enough to stay away from the ballot booths and they don’t want to do anything to change that. Perhaps they feel that if the gay marriage issue was on the ballot it would turn out conservatives and moderates who were planning on staying home, and that would in turn hurt the Democrats’ chances of re-election. including the governor’s chance of being re-elected.
No matter what the reason for their vote today, New Hampshire Democrats have shown us that they do not even care enough about how we feel to put the question on the ballot.
America's Watchtower 
Questions of civil rights should be left to the courts, not to popular vote. We shouldn’t let the majority deny rights to the minority like that. Imagine if Brown v. Board of Education had been put to a vote…
LikeLike
This was a non-binding question.
LikeLike
Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a Sacramental union of one man and one woman. The civil part of what we now call marriage as a society is a legal binding contract, which is also not a civil right. The sodomites and other denigrates already have the right to enter into binding legal contracts. They only wish to degrade the Sacramental nature of Marriage so that they will not have to feel like the perverts that they are.
The problem stems from our lose of a sense of shame in this country. If I turn a blind eye toward or condone another’s perversity then I don’t have to feel shame about my own.
You can call it anything you want, but it’s still sodomy and can never be a true Marriage.
Stay out of my religion.
LikeLike
“Same-Sex Marriage” is a contradiction of terms.
“The first point is that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Without exception, every adult in (New Hampshire) already has a right to marry. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry–again, without exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone–there is no discrimination involved.” (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:PSr894jwUO0J:www.frc.org/get.cfm%3Fi%3DPD05B01+marriage+is+not+a+civil+right&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
The liberal democrats are afraid that if such a question was put to the voters then they would have to face the fact that the majority does not indeed favor anything except the union of one man and one woman as Marriage.
We have set back and let the liberal minority cry out loud for too long, it is time for us to speak up for what we believe and hold dear. We let the liberals and the perverts cry loudly without contraction out of respect for their right to have their opinions, for if we do not respect their freedoms ours mean nothing. But there is a difference between civil freedoms and the perversion of our society. The longer we let their rhetoric go unchallenged, the more it undermines the moral teaching of our next generation.
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/gay-marriage-is-not-civil-right.html
LikeLike
Unfortunately, teenagers already think it’s “cool” to be gay. It’s been like that for a few years, at least. Gay marriage is a right? Where did that idea come from? I think folks are getting privilege and right mixed up.
LikeLike
Under their logic gay marriage is a right, but straight couples can be denied a marriage license. Which means that straight people do not have the “right” to be married. As you said marriage is a priviledge and not a right, straight or gay.
LikeLike
It’s time to vote them out of office and, as Huckabee has been stating, implement term limits! I have had enough of this ridiculousness!
LikeLike
Hopefully this fiasco will have at least one positive effect: the downfall of Governor Lynch and the rest of his cronies.
LikeLike
Amen brother!
LikeLike
In your profile you say you are a libertarian. What libertarian accepts the majority dictating to the minority. Maybe we should apply your logic to the right to bear arms. I would love to personally vote on that. Unlike guns, I can’t think of a gay marriage that has physically harmed anyone.
You also state you have no problem with civil unions and the benefits it would offer. So, you seem to be hung up on the word “marriage” itself. Many straight couples choose to have civil marriages and are refered to as married, except by the faithful who consider them living in sin. Are we to assume you also consider them harmful to society.
Finally, if this is non binding, what’s the point, other than a waste of time and money. Or is this a platform to overturn what you want to deny others. I question your libertarian claims.
LikeLike
In my profile I stated that “I suppose that I am a libertarian at heart,” I do have some issues with the libertarian line of thinking that have prevented me from totally buying into the philosophy.
When you wrote ” Are we to assume you also consider them harmful to society?”
Why do you think that I consider homosexual couple harmful to society, I never said that so please don’t put words in my mouth. This article was written before gay marriage became law in New Hampshire, it wouldn’t have been overturning anything, it would have given our elected officials the chance to see how voters would want them to vote. There is nothing wrong with an elected official knowing how their constitutents want them to vote. New Hampshire voters elected pro gay marriage politicians and gay marriage was passed lawfully, I didn’t support it but I have accepted it. This is not a big issue with me, there are much more important issues in my opinion, and those are the ones I usually focus on.
On voting on the second amendment, because the second amendment is actually in the constitution there is a proper process to go through to repeal it, we would just have to go through the amendment process. That is a little different.
LikeLike
I stumbled onto your site while searching for “let nh vote”. As you are now probably aware, the groups that pushed for the vote are now pushing for a constitutional amendment. Big surprise. The religious right will never accept it and will continue to try and force their religious views on others.
I reread your blog. I acknowledge your focus on a non- binding referendum to inform our representatives. I do disagree on the need for it. As a democratic republic, we vote for a legislature to represent us. New Hampshire has the largest legislature per population in the world. We have the most representation in the world. We are free to make our views heard by contacting our representatives.
Allowing a non-binding vote, that could be seen as successful in swaying elected officials votes, would possibly set in motion a dangerous precedent. I see a flood of petitions from every interest group unhappy with certain legislation. I prefer that my representatives decide legislation on their merits. And not on the latest poll drive.
LikeLike
I agree with your premise that as a representative republic we elect the officials to represent us. They vote for us, that is why it is so important for the voters to understand who they are voting for.
It is an interesting point that you made, the vote would inform our representative how we feel when in reality we should have known how our representative felt before we elected them. As a believer in the system, and as I stated above, because of my belief in the system I have accepted the result.
LikeLike