Posted on 10/25/2011 6:31:44 AM PDT by fwdude
CONCORD — Both sides of a contentious debate on marriage equality will square off in Concord today.
The House Judiciary Committee will consider House Bill 437 to repeal same-sex marriage, which became legal just last year. The bill also would allow civil unions for any unmarried adults competent to enter into a contract — including relatives.
The bill's sponsor, state Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, told the Herald on Monday the latest push to repeal gay marriage is meant to correct what he said was a mistake made by the Legislature in 2009.
"I, and many people in New Hampshire, believe that those who pushed through this law in 2009 simply did not have the right to redefine marriage for our entire society," Bates said.
(Excerpt) Read more at seacoastonline.com ...
The DemonRAT governor will veto any such bill, so they will need a super majority to override his certain veto.
This would be great if they can repeal this! Then the people of Massachusetts would once again have a state close by to escape to!
The problem will be when one of them switches partners and tries to screw (unscrew) the other....in other words they need to include a "divorce" agreement in their "legal agreement".
Bottom line...tell gays that I do not want them as part of my life. Stop the gay in every TV show etc etc, Just do your thing and leave me alone and stay away from my kids and grandkids.
Contacts have ALWAYS been available to any two people - for property, inheritance, health decisions, etc. This is the way it should be. All the accoutrements of a “marriage” fantasy, short of everyone else’s forced acceptance of it, is available to these sexual perverts.
see post #5. Massh-—s do still have a state to escape too. This is far from the only issue in NH.
NH differs a lot town to town.
Seems to me that NH, like many states, went strongly Republican in their legislature in 2010. Enough to override a veto? Not sure.
Perverts deserve no special treatment except from a pyschologist.
Yes! I've seen Manchester!
Not a pretty sight!
Yours is a tired, inane argument.
The government MUST define marriages because, eventually, they MUST enforce marriages.
Work towards the enlightened Indian approach. Homosexuality is illegal, but decriminalized. They are not persecuted, but neither can they rub their perversion in society’s face. Once you have crossed that line, you have no argument against this.””
Most problems with queers began when the behavior was in fact, decriminalized. Having lived in the Bay Area of San Fran for 6 years I witnessed the rampant same-sex molestation of little boys routinely.
It’s hard to put the peel back on the onion once it’s off. What do you tell all the “married” same sex couples? They are no longer married? The state should not be involved in marriages. It’s a church function. I can understand civil unions for purposes of contracts and ownership and stuff like that. Other than that it’s not the government’s business.
You are more perceptive than the vast majority here. Reversing Lawrence would go a very long way to stemming the damage done.
“I witnessed the rampant same-sex molestation of little boys routinely.”
Then why did you not report this crime? If it was illegal but decriminalized, you could have reported the crime.
What do you mean the government must “enforce marriages”??
GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE.
Letting the government into marriage was the stupidest thing we ever did. They have NO business in marriage.
HOLY MATRIMONY is a thing for the church. Get the state out of the church.
The only consolation is that same-sex relationships often last only as long as the next social gathering, when more fresh meat is offered. That, or they die much earlier from one or more of the many diseases they are prone to.
Again, who will enforce the vows of marriage in a "marriage-less" government? The government must recognize marriage, not regulate it. Otherwise, social anarchy would reign. There is nothing wrong with the government recognizing and recording the incidence of marriage because government will often, inevitably have to intervene in an officiating role when marriages either fail, have problems, or resultant children are involved. Partners in a marriage seldom die simultaneously, and the issues arising out of this event are myriad.
You are so naive, it’s pitiful.
See my post #17 above.
“The government MUST define marriages because, eventually, they MUST enforce marriages.”
I think you must mean “recognize marriages”. I doubt if the state defines marriage for many Freepers, although I have seen it occasionally. There are plenty of faiths who realize that a piece of paper from the state doesn’t make anyone married or not, whether between divorced and remarried men and women or some impossible combo like “gay marriage”.
The problem with the state involvement is the “enforcement” aspect. Once the state is involved the institution basically becomes whatever judges, pols, and ultimately the majority think it is. Then the enforcement becomes punishment for disagreeing with the state’s definition of marriage.
But the state is never giving it up now, it provides too much control of the culture.
Freegards
Who are you to tell anyone that they need to not support laws defining marraige. The problem is with the perversion of the left-wing and not with our right to representation.
The people have every right to make laws that promote and recoginize marraige and family.
Your call is for the people to give up their right to representation and in essence surrender to a state of anarchy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.