PPP Poll: “Opinions Are Changing and Changing Fast”
When we polled New Hampshire last July it supported gay marriage 51/38. Now 57/35. Opinions are changing and changing fast
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) May 15, 2012
Anti-Gay Organization Launches Ad Campaign
Acting on a promise to “play a significant role” in New Hampshire politics, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) launched a statewide newspaper advertising campaign today attacking 87 House Republicans who voted against repeal of the marriage equality:
The cause of marriage was betrayed by the Republican state representatives listed below. They led voters to believe they supported traditional marriage, but instead voted in favor of same- sex marriage. They stood with Democrats from New York who created and funded a phony “Republican” front-group. They stood with interests who want to rip traditional marriage from the GOP platform. They stood against every major Republican candidate for President.
NOM has been labeled “anti-gay” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for propagating “demonizing propaganda” based on “known falsehoods.” This ad is no exception. It accuses “some of them” of mocking “the very institution of marriage that God himself authored” and highlights a quote from Rep. Michael Ball:
“Put this dog (traditional marriage) down like it deserves to be.”
Ball, of course, was referring to the proposed repeal legislation that needed to be “put down,” not traditional marriage.
Quote of the Day: On an Equal Footing with N.H.
As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington’s employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. … Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.
— Brad Smith, Microsoft General Counsel & Executive Vice President, on why marriage equality is good for business
h/t: Jim Splaine
Cornerstone: Marriage Equality Will Cost $1 Trillion
Cornerstone, the New Hampshire organization most dedicated to repealing marriage equality, expressed “disappointment” over today’s defeat of House Bill 437. Cornerstone claimed same-sex marriage will lead to greater dependency on government services, increases in substance abuse and an escalation of juvenile delinquency — with a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.
Ultimately, it will be our children that will pay the price for failing to pass HB 437. For instance, genderless marriage ends the biological link between parents and children. In the future, parenting will just become a contract between two people; the gender roles of a mom and a dad will be irrelevant. This violates the right of the child to know their biological mother and father.
There are also real long-term economic consequences to the breakdown of traditional marriage. Such costs include dependency of children on government services like Medicaid, increases in substance abuse, and an escalation of juvenile delinquency. These costs in New Hampshire have been conservatively calculated to be nearly $100 million a year and, nationally, the cost is $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over a decade.
“In NH, Marriage Equality Is for All NH Citizens”
“I would like to praise the NH House for recognizing that in NH, marriage equality is for all NH citizens. The vote today solidifies what the majority of NH citizens believe — that marriage equality is about the people of this great state. I am very proud of the House vote today to uphold our marriage laws and to be a leader in our nation.”
— House Democratic Leader Terie Norelli, on today’s defeat of House Bill 437, which would have repealed same-sex marriage.
Bates Goes There: “STDs in Homosexual Couples”
The Lobby reports Rep. David Bates, prime sponsor of the House bill to repeal same-sex marriage, plans to cite “the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual couples” as justification for repealing same-sex marriage.
He added he plans to educate the public, possibly during his floor debate on the amendment and bill, on statistics he said he has from the Centers for Disease Control regarding the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual couples.
“How could the state adopt a public policy that is dangerous to people’s health?” he said.
Bates Puts Lipstick on a ‘Marriage Equality Repeal’ Pig
Rep. David Bates, prime sponsor of the bill to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, today conceded that his bill as written would not receive enough votes to override a promised gubernatorial veto. In an attempt to garner more votes, Bates will introduce a floor amendment with extensive changes.
Bates admitted that opponents had been effective at communicating the details of the bill’s original civil-union-in-name-only marriage-substitute that would have been offered to any two adults —including family members — and explicitly exempted them from anti-discrimination laws.
“This will eliminate the baseless but effective, hysterical claims that others have been making that this bill would permit or encourage incest in New Hampshire,” he said. “Our opponents can no longer make the ridiculous claims that this law will eradicate the state’s anti-discrimination laws.”
Nevertheless, Bates was honest about his intent.
“From my perspective, this is not intended to be a substitute or mimic of marriage,” he said.
Bates’ amendment also would add a non-binding referendum to the November ballot: “Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?”
With a straight face, Bates proposed the following process: If the referendum is approved, marriage equality will end on March 31, 2013. If it fails, the Legislature “will have time” to repeal the repeal.
Bates said if the voters disapprove of the traditional marriage language at the ballot box, he and others would drop the issue.
Yeah, right.
The Paranoid Fantasy of Rep. David Bates
If we allow same-sex marriage, says New Hampshire state Rep. David Bates, it’s just a matter of time before the government begins arresting those who oppose it.
“There is no question there are very real, dangerous consequences of us adopting, as a matter of public policy, an affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. It’s a short step from there for the government to prohibit opposition and to prosecute people for so-called hate crimes for speaking out against it.
“That is where this is all leading.”
Sen. White’s “Vehement Opposition” to Marriage Equality
In a guest post on Granite Grok, state Sen. Raymond White expressed his “vehement opposition” to same-sex marriage, demonstrating ignorance of marriage’s historical evolution and describing it as integral to the “crumbling of society.” Not surprisingly, White reiterated his support for repealing marriage equality — despite acknowledging that his mail is running 10-1 against it.
It has been only in recent years that the notion has been put forth that marriage needs to be redefined and broadened. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is unbelievable that after thousands and thousands of years of human history, that we think we can turn our backs on this fundamental truth and still prosper as a society. It is complete hubris to believe that we are smarter than the billions upon billions of people who have gone before us.
[The breakdown of the traditional family] began several decades ago with the general acceptance of divorce, and has proceeded to the general acceptance of producing children without the benefit of marriage and commitment, where fathers are now optional sperm donors, and now to the topic we find ourselves discussing in this e-mail. It is no coincidence that everything I am describing has happened simultaneously, i.e. the rethinking and redefinition of marriage and the social crumbling of society at large.
N.Y. Times: Bates’ Absurd Argument Against Marriage
Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times editorial page editor, weighs in on Rep. David Bates’ assertion that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
It’s astonishing that anyone in the 21st century would hew to the notion that humans choose their sexual orientation. I wonder when Mr. Bates made the affirmative decision to become a heterosexual.
But in any case, the preference issue isn’t sufficient to end the conversation. We choose our religious affiliations—or at least we have the freedom to choose—and yet it’s illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of religion.
The constitution grants many rights based upon behavior, including the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech. Mr. Bates has a constitutionally protected right to have his say on marriage, no matter how absurd it may be.
Rep. Bates: OK to Discriminate Against Gays & Lesbians
Rep. David Bates, prime sponsor of the bill to repeal New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage statute, is quite upfront about his homophobia. There is no justification, he says, for treating gays and lesbians as equal citizens with the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals.
“Civil rights have to do with intrinsic qualities that a person just can’t change,” such as race or gender, Bates said. Homosexuality doesn’t meet that criterion, he said, adding that not long ago it was referred to as “sexual preference.”
“There’s no other example of any basis that we afford a civil right based upon a behavior or a preferential choice,” he said.
In One Chart: NH Opposes Repeal of Marriage Equality
Standing Up for New Hampshire Families charted the results from four separate public opinion surveys — all indicating New Hampshire adults oppose repeal of the state’s marriage equality law by a 2-to-1 majority. ”These numbers don’t lie,” they tweet. “Across the board, NH voters oppose attempts to repeal marriage equality!”
