Will New Hampshire make five?

by Eric Grignol · 2009-04-30 05:00:00 UTC

New Hampshire

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate voted 13-11 to allow gay marriage. The bill now goes to the House, and if approved, on to Gov. John Lynch. The Governor has not said outright that he would veto the bill, but seems to prefer civil unions.

The state has been hammering out what civil and religious marriages would look like and what the distinctions between two would be. As it stands now, civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. "This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens," said Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan. "This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides of this debate and meets our shared goal of equality under state law," added Democratic Sen. Deborah Reynolds.

What do you think? Should there be a distinction? Some could still say that this divide is more of the same "separate but equal" mentality of civil unions that the state already provides, but not full marriage. (Make sure gay people have their own category! Don't let them in our exclusive club!)

Well, at the very least, you have to acknowledge and somewhat admire that the state representatives are thoughtfully striving to show fairness to both sides of the issue. Politics: it's all about compromise. Looking at it through this lens, though, I find it interesting that no matter how the hard government tries to make these sorts of arrangements so that everyone's viewpoint is represented, the Associated Press reports this:

"Opponents argued that marriage is a sacred religious institution that would be cheapened by allowing gays to marry. They said gay marriages threaten the foundation of human civilization."

Really? We're out to end civilization, not to build loving families and strengthen the bonds of our communities? And just by including us in the club ruins the whole thing? Obviously with rebuttals like this, it shows that opponents are running scared with nowhere to turn, because the game is over on this selfish game of "keep away." They see states, like dominos lined up in a row. And then there's New Jersey... and New York... and California...

Americans will no longer tolerate its fellow citizens having separate rights for separate groups. Stay tuned and watch history being made.

PREVIOUS STORY:
Another way to say "family" in Michigan...and Florida? Soon.
NEXT STORY:
Bullied high schooler convinces MPAA to change ‘Bully’ rating to “PG-13”

COMMENTS (6)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.