Marriage equality in New Hampshire!
Great news! Despite right-wing threats that gay people are falling from the sky and corrupting innocent children, New Hampshire has officially become the sixth state on the equal marriage bandwagon.
Said the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, the church's only openly gay bishop:
"A lot of New Hampshire families have come to know people in their families who are gay -- co-workers, former classmates -- and that's what really made this difference. We are no longer talking about an issue. We are talking about people."
Despite the good news, let's not forget that New Hampshire also recently rejected a bill that would have protected transgender folks under anti-discrimination and hate crime laws. There is a LOT more work to be done to bring equality to the state.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Marriage equality in New Hampshire!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14098
I wish feministing had dancing smileys for moments like this.
WIN!
Over 1/10th of US states now have equal marriage laws!
"Over 1/10th of US states now have equal marriage laws!"
...including 5/6 of New England. ;) Meanwhile, does anyone else wish there was more geographic diversity in this first batch of states offering same-sex marriage licenses? It's not just a Northeast thing!
I was the most psyched about these announcements when they were about Massachusetts (even though it doesn't affect me directly because I'm straight, I live here) and Iowa (yes many Midwesterners are progressive too, no matter what some jerks on the East Coast think!).
FUCK YEEEAAAAH. i go to college in NH! :)
YAY! I've lived in NH my whole life, and I'm so happy to finally see this really happening.
one state after another....this is a slippery slope I'm a fan of :)
Good on you, New Hampshire.
But let's be clear about one thing: This doesn't mean I'm going to stop mocking you for your state being so boring that your state quarter featured a rock that looks like a face. Pass the anti-discrimination law, and we'll talk.
At least the "Old Man" (which finally collapsed several years ago in spite of the state's best efforts hold it together) was a natural formation. South Dakota is home to that gigantic Franklin Mint-like piece of kitsch, Mt. Rushmore. And as if that weren't bad enough, they're thinking of adding Ronald Reagan to it.
If you think the Old Man is boring, though, you should try following the ongoing fight over what constitutes an "adequate" education and how to fund it. That's been going on forever, but you can't really depict it on a quarter.
Yes!! Now keep going until all states have marriage equality :)
Fantastic, another state bites the dust.
my new hampshire friends must be extremely pleased. :)
good news, bad news. bad news, good news. the good news, though, is that all bad news will eventually be negated by good news, but it is extremely unlikely to ever move back in the other direction. except for in california. but hey, 2010, here we come!
Yay!
Does anyone know - when is the NY State Senate voting on this?
NY Senate is voting "before the end of June."
Sen. Duane says he has the necessary votes to make it legal: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/02/2009-06-02_progay_nups_pol_itll_pass.html
NY1 poll puts it at 20 yes, 28 no, 14 undecided (need 12/14 to pass). Here's Nate Silver's analysis: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/is-gay-marraige-coming-or-going-in-ny.html
I think NJ's actions have no doubt helped, and hopefully we don't pull a California.
NO one cares what gays do -- this is just another forced entitlement.
What does a widow or single person do to get benefits?
It's about money.
It's about socialism.
It's wrong to portray it as human rights coming from government. Government does not give you your human rights, they just steal money from some to give to others.
Gays who are socialist believe in this, gays who are conservative and understand the role of government do NOT believe in this.
That's my view, as a gay man. This is just wrong.
You know, as a libertarian, I can agree that marriage shouldn't affect how the state treats individuals financially (which it often does). What I don't see, is any reason that gay couples should be declined those benefits that straight couples enjoy.
So, did you have a point, or are you just trolling?
He's a troll.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/boston-vigil-for-dr-tiller.html#comment-263643
"While I don't condone in any way the violence that took Tiller's life, I also don't condone the 60,000 dead babies he killed who were viable people in very late term pregnancies. Who will hold a vigil for those children? I am not sure what is so brave about a man who could cold bloodedly do this kind of deed.
I suggest if you never saw a late term abortion you view one on YouTube...
Tiller never could explain what he was doing when asked by reporters, and always cried that he was being attacked or prevented from leaving when he wasn't. This is the mark of a coward in my book."
Not a very bright one.
If marriage is "just wrong" (the favorite phrase of those who have no justification -- nothing is ever "just wrong" -- things that are wrong are wrong for specific reasons) for gay couples, it's also wrong for straight couples. Do you believe it's wrong for the state to recognize marriage between straight couples?
Meanwhile, the NOM-nuts are throwing a hissy fit. :-)
Gosh -- a whole roll of toilet paper!
That's in response to a comment now deleted. Might as well take it out too, now.
Yeah, I'm not having any celebrations over this. 'Marriage equality' seems more than a bit hollow in light of the New Hampshire House and Senate pushing Trans* protections under the bus.
"We are no longer talking about an issue. We are talking about people."
We've been talking about people for a long time, too: Angie Zapata, Gwen Arujo, Ruby Molina, Duanna Johnson, and on, and on.
Thank you for reminding people about NH rejecting Trans* protections. I don't see the gay marriage activist types making that connection, but then again single-issue activists are usually just self-focused and disappear once they've got what they want.
Laws concerning a choice of the spouse, property rights of spouses, inheritances, a choice of a residence, divorce and other questions connected with marriage and a family, should be made proceeding from a principle of personal advantage and an equality of sexes.
The tendency when representatives of sexual minorities I demand the equal rights - true display of democracy and freedom. My voice - yes!