Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N.H. House begins bid to repeal gay marriage
Seacoastonline.com ^ | 10/25/2011 | Charles McMahon

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; nh2012; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: Ransomed
No, I meant "define." If the government is going to recognize a relationship, they must define what it is that they are recognizing. We shouldn't recoil from this natural reality, we all HAVE to do this in everyday life - differentiate between things in order to avoid insanity. Doing this is "defining."

And what is it the government is obliged to define? Nothing more that what SOCIETY has ALREADY defined as marriage. Government doesn't change anything. In fact, government is PROTECTING what society defines as a central, essential, foundational cultural standard.

21 posted on 10/25/2011 7:19:07 AM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I agree that the government has an interest in marriage as far as from a contractual standpoint. Joint ownership of things, contracts, etc.. But not from a religious standpoint. I don’t even think there should be a tax benefit to it. Then again, I don’t think there should be any income tax, just a consumption tax. If there is an income tax, I don’t think there should be any loopholes, just a flat tax. Graduated up to a flat tax from the lower end so it would be a progressive tax system somewhat.


22 posted on 10/25/2011 7:25:02 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Government doesn’t change anything. In fact, government is PROTECTING what society defines as a central, essential, foundational cultural standard.”

Except when it doesn’t. Divorce and remarriage? Those states that already have “gay marriage?” I know what my faith says about those things, and I know what the state says. My faith recognizes that it doesn’t have the authority to change marriage. The state doesn’t, and never will. The two aren’t ever going to agree, but the state has the power to punish if one disagrees with its definitions.

Freegards


23 posted on 10/25/2011 7:30:34 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
I'm in full agreement with your opinions regarding taxation.

Marriage is a reality. Government isn't interfering by recognizing and acting on this reality, especially when it is an essential reality to nearly everything we do.

24 posted on 10/25/2011 7:33:23 AM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I don’t think you even know what the word naive means.

I asked you a question. What do you mean the government must “enforce marriages”??


25 posted on 10/25/2011 8:03:35 AM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass
What do you mean the government must “enforce marriages”??

First question: Who enforces the promises of marriage if not an outside party?

26 posted on 10/25/2011 8:16:48 AM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass
GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE. Letting the government into marriage was the stupidest thing we ever did. They have NO business in marriage.

Earth to "Christian Engineer Mass": NEWS FLASH - The state of New Hampshire has changed the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples.

Your head-in-the-sand pointless insistence that the state has nothing to do with marriage is officially irrelevant. States ARE increasingly becoming involved in redefining marriage. It's a fait accompli. What do you intend to do about it - keep your head in the sand, or get involved to defend marriage as ordained by God and your Christian beliefs?

27 posted on 10/25/2011 8:31:27 AM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Who enforces the promises of marriage if not an outside party?”

The individuals themselves, and the social integration of their church. Are you a Christian? Where do you read in the Bible that the government should “enforce marriage”? What do you even mean by that? Adultery is no longer a crime.

The government has already stepped away from the position of holy matrimony enforcement by allowing easy divorce and making adultery legal. If you want to get back to the position before those changes then fine I can appreciate that. But as it stands now you have a secular government who cares not a damn about marriage in charge of it. That is insane. They have no business tinkering with marriage, and we should not accept their authority over it.

I hope this change in NH passes. It might just do this time. But knowing a little about NH it may very well not do. And even if it does eventually they’ll force it through. Better to take it out of their hands all together.


28 posted on 10/25/2011 8:39:40 AM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454

As I say in the post after yours - great I hiope this passes. But it’s not a long term solution. They will eventually force this through with their activist judges.

In the longer term we need to get the government out of marriage at the national level.

Unless you actually go back to homosexuality being illegal but decriminalized, they will always have the argument that they are being discriminated against, because of laws that give benefits to married couples.

So fight these little fights now. Great. But the conservative movement has been slow and stupid over the last 60-80 years, merely reacting to whatever leftists do. We need to have long term plans, because the leftists do, and they are killing out world with them. Pushing back is not a long term solution.


29 posted on 10/25/2011 8:47:23 AM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

What a mess - bunch of heathens in government.


30 posted on 10/25/2011 8:49:23 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


31 posted on 10/25/2011 9:03:06 AM PDT by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

I was a kid at the time and law enforcement largely just let it go. Recall that NAMBLA members once marched openly in “gay” pride parades. They were welcomed with open engagement until the organization become less acceptable and has since gone underground. But, make no mistake, male homos continue to seek young boys on every corner and in every filthy public restroom. Look at Mayor Smith of Portland—he molested a boy in a public restroom and wasn’t prosecuted or even relieved of his office.


32 posted on 10/25/2011 9:55:11 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]




Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10

33 posted on 10/25/2011 10:21:32 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass
How do individuals themselves enforce an agreement between them when one party do the agreement doesn't honor it? What if they're not a member a faith community that they are accountable to? What if they are? What "enforcement" power does a church have?

In other words, you're saying a man can marry a woman, bear several children with her, and just walk away with no commitment when the woman and children are dependent on his income? No one can hold him to it? What obligations does he have? Who says so?

34 posted on 10/25/2011 11:50:45 AM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Excellent, hope they manage to repeal perv "marriage". The civil union thing allows ANY two adults to make a legally binding civil union, even relatives. What?? Isn't there enough contract law to cover any conceivable legal needs between two adults?

35 posted on 10/25/2011 4:25:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass; fwdude

Marriages have been legally binding for a long, long, long time. Not just within a church community.

Nothing wrong with it, either.


36 posted on 10/25/2011 4:32:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

How is the government “enforcing marriage” now, as you see it?


37 posted on 10/25/2011 5:15:46 PM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass; fwdude

I said that marriage has been “legally binding”.

And that is a good thing.

Ask fwdude what he meant by that word; I didn’t use it. He probably meant “legally binding” but he used the word, not me. You don’t want marriage to be legally binding or something?


38 posted on 10/25/2011 5:23:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Tell me what you mean by it. I don’t think it is legally binding. It would be legally binding if there were laws against adultery. There are not. It would be legally binding if divorce could not be had for just any reason. It can.

If we had a government that governed out of deference to the Bible and Christian standards, like we used to, then it would be great. There would be a law against adultery, divorce could not be had for just any reason. Then sure, under those circumstances, where the government was based on respect for God and the Bible, sure marriage should be legally binding under the government laws, because the government would be deferent to the Bible.

But we DON’T have that. We have a system that encourages families to be ripped apart because it makes people more dependent on the government and less dependent on one another.


39 posted on 10/25/2011 7:32:55 PM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson