Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: NH House on Gay Marriage?  (Read 3911 times)

Justin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 686
  • So... these are going to be my neighbors?!
NH House on Gay Marriage?
« on: April 30, 2004, 02:04:33 pm »

Not sure how to interpret this article.  Can any locals provide some insight?

House blocks recognition of gay marriages
Logged
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot

WAKE_N_BAKE

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • ----------------------
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2004, 03:13:56 pm »

We'll need to elminate the words Husband and Wife.
Logged

The energy, the faith, the devotion which we
bring to this endeavor will light our country
and all who serve it, and the glow from that
fire can truly light the world.

- Thomas Jefferson

bmud

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2004, 03:34:25 pm »

[derail, sorry]

You aren't WAKE_N_BAKE from SomethingAwful are you?
Logged

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2004, 06:02:51 pm »

The House voted to not recognise gay marriages performed in other states, to prevent people who've done so from coming back to this state and demand equal treatment. This is merely a formality to prevent activist judges in the state from legislating from the bench until the proper legislature has been able to come up with it's own solution. Gay marriages currently were not recognised to begin with.

On the plus side, they have formed a committee to study the idea of a civil unions law. Personally I'd prefer that they study getting government out of marriage all together.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 06:03:49 pm by Mike Lorrey »
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2004, 12:37:35 am »

For once Mike and I agree.

We need to make sure activist judges don't start granting affirmitive action type previlidges.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

adonis79

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • TheFlowerOf SafetyLiesWithin ThePerilousThorns
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2004, 02:12:40 pm »

You are legally married right Tracy?  And I imagine you take advantage of the 1100+ benefits that being state married brings such as hospital visiting  rights, tax breaks etc?...oh lets not forget in any state or country you visit.
  Most of you tax avoiding "moral libertarians" are hypocrite, I am going to assume that you like them are a hypocrite that doesnt really believe in liberty or that people are entitled to make decisions concerning their own life if it causes you no personal harm, UNLESS you believe their decisions to be morally sound..and please leave the potential wrath of god argument aside as we wont get any where with it.

Affirmative action like privileges?  What is that supposed to mean? Gays arnt taking anything from the system that they havant paid into it.  You can enjoy the fruits of their labor why shouldnt they enjoy the fruits of there labor? because you are personal morally offended by it Tracy?.  This isnt a gay scholarship for the C+ student this is the ability to pass ones wealth to ones partner on death without paying huge amounts of extra taxes to the government to pay the salary of the clerk that filed YOUR marriage certificate.  

The hypocracy of legally married "libertarians' in this organization is appalling.  Supposedly you all believe that marriage should be abolished and then gays wont have to try and jump onto your prejudiced bandwagon.
I dare you to disengage yourself from the coercion you say you would like to correct.  Give up the benefits you receive as a civic married person Tracy and put your deeds where your harsh biased criticism lye.  Then you can bitch all you want about gays seeking marriage until then it points you out as nothing but a state sucking bigot, like all those other affirmative action types.

Activist judges?  The majority of judges of whom you speak were placed on the bench by conservative administrations of past...they are in fact not as liberal as I think you intended them to sound.  
As to their form of activism, thumbs up for ceasing to honor laws that discriminate against one and were enacted to do just that by another.  Acting out against the established and sanctioned wrong in our society is exactly what these judges are in a position to do, and I believe our founders intended it that way.  Or perhaps you ought to encourage the passage of the bill that will put judicial decisions not in favor with the christian wrong but right  back into the hands of a big business controlled congress?

When you signed your statement of intent did you notice the part that said reduce the size of government activity?  That means not endorsing UNNNECCISSARY bills like this one that further the governments ability to intrude into peoples lives and tell them who or how to be.  I challenge all you faith based FSP members who have signed up to live and let live to evaluate contributing to topics such as gay related posts so frequently as it is an issue that obviously doesnt concern you.  I in turn will not comment on your religion forums as it doesnt concern me.  Your hateful,degrading,judgmental and constant posts on these topics tells us all that you want to be involved in gay life and would like to impose your morals on the minority of members who dont function within your comfort zone....that is AGAINST the statement of intent you signed as a freedom loving tolerant folk.

 I would ask those of you who dont share Tracy and Joey's gift for gay slurring to recognize that this is an issue that is keeping the socialist agenda strong and the libertarian and FSP weak.  i am one of many (10 that I know hover in these forums and the countless friends and family we may recruit) gays that will not sign up for this project if it means giving support to an organization that will vote for candidates that agree with 8 of 10 issues but will impose their morals on Gays and women who seek abortion.  It is ambivalence to people who under the current system seek "rights" that disenables the Libs or FSP from growing their numbers with truly Liberty loving tolerant folk....who agree with all 10 issues but will risk controlled socialism to avoid being the underdog or vulnerable to concentration camps because of their practices or beliefs.

There is a party Tracy that already shares your prejudice toward gays and "activist" judges. They will push your prolife, antigay agenda right to the top and they my friend are the republican party and if you believe in their ideals so much there is no reason to uproot you and your wife from cheap rent and a place called home to pursue freedom because you as a straight white male have the closest thing to it...and it is conveniently coerced from gays.  When you signed your statement of intent did you notice the part that said reduce the size of government activity?  That means not endorsing UNNECCISSARY bills like this one that further the governments ability to intrude into peoples lives and tell them who or how to be.


« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 02:15:13 pm by adonis79 »
Logged
I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of freedom becomes a harness to you,  and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
Kahlil Gibran

adonis79

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • TheFlowerOf SafetyLiesWithin ThePerilousThorns
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2004, 02:22:09 pm »

The House voted to not recognise gay marriages performed in other states, to prevent people who've done so from coming back to this state and demand equal treatment. This is merely a formality to prevent activist judges in the state from legislating from the bench until the proper legislature has been able to come up with it's own solution. Gay marriages currently were not recognised to begin with.

On the plus side, they have formed a committee to study the idea of a civil unions law. Personally I'd prefer that they study getting government out of marriage all together.
Mike why shouldnt one demand equal treatment?  You are using the phrase activist judges, coined by the current adminstration....should you be speaking on their behalf instead?
I am not attacking you but I would love to know where you stand on bills like this proposed without a corasponding bill to help satisfy the issue at hand but merly as a means of satisfying the conservative voters.  It is easy to say it was proposed to buy time, but this issue has been around a lot longer than the past year.  Certainly a solution could have been explored and agreed upon before now?  
Is seperate equal, in regards to civil unions?
Why would New Hampshire be so threatened by standing up for tax paying citizen's and by doing so not further diversify ways the law can segragate people?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 02:29:07 pm by adonis79 »
Logged
I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of freedom becomes a harness to you,  and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
Kahlil Gibran

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2004, 02:36:56 pm »

The legislature is standing up for the will of 70% of the tax paying citizens of this country who say they do NOT want gay marriage. Seventy percent is  a bit more than that necessary to amend the constitution, which you should be aware of. Gay marriage is not low hanging fruit, adonis.

As I said, I'd prefer if they passed a law to get government out of marriage altogether. It would accomplish the same goal while at the same time maximizing individual liberty and minimizing the role of government. It is the best option.

People who think otherwise and insist on government approved gay marriage are following an agenda that seeks to force others with moral scruples against homosexuality to accept it legally. It is an in-your-face agenda that is typical of Act-Up, PETA, and other radical groups. They also want to be able to have partners inherit social security benefits of their partners, which is the real brass ring of their agenda.

Other left wing support comes from the "it's for the children" crowd. Legally the state has no authority butting into common law marriages and their progeny.

If you are opposed to expanding government entitlements, opposed to social security, welfare statism, and government being a polygamous partner in your relationship, then you should be arguing to get government out of marriage, NOT to expand government marriage licensing.

Furthermore, if you took the time to study the Vermont Civil Unions law, you will notice that the state, in order to comply with constitutional strictures of equal justice, made the law applicable for anyone, gay or straight, even allowing members of the same family (parents, kids, siblings, etc) to get civil unions.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

adonis79

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • TheFlowerOf SafetyLiesWithin ThePerilousThorns
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2004, 05:30:44 pm »

Quote
The legislature is standing up for the will of 70% of the tax paying citizens of this country who say they do NOT want gay marriage. Seventy percent is  a bit more than that necessary to amend the constitution, which you should be aware of. Gay marriage is not low hanging fruit, adonis.
Of course seizing the fruits of someone elses labor and redistributing them among the majority is a habit of the 70% majority And mob rule does not indicate right as you have pointed out in past.  The 70% who oppose would not suffer physically or financial adversely  effects, what claim do they have to dictate how others choose to live their lives...oh yes because they can make new amendments, that makes it right and calls you to their defense.
I am aware that the mob can amend the constitution to more fully subject heathens and those born on the same soil to additional slavery to serve THEIR omnipresent master.  Gay marriage is not low hanging fruit so therefore you must appreciate the battle being waged has merit or the blasphemous threat of amending the constitution to resolve such matters wouldnt be your threat to legitimize the conservative position.
Amending the constitution would only further degrade and devalue it.  I am sure anyone here who loves this document would agree with me.

Quote
As I said, I'd prefer if they passed a law to get government out of marriage altogether. It would accomplish the same goal while at the same time maximizing individual liberty and minimizing the role of government. It is the best option.

I agree Mike, far from the times we live in and the Libs have failed to make this a popular idea or reality prior to this issue. Sometimes things must get worse before they get better.  It is a sad thing that speakers of liberty and freedom would not endorse the idea of someone calling for the end of oppressive legislation.  Arnt gays doing what I hear advocated on these boards frequently...using the current systems to make changes?  Wouldnt the "undermining of the sanctity" of State marriage by gays further your march toward the abolishment of the public institution?  How are the majority of straight white married Libs. promoting getting the government out of marriage?...they are not, they dont practice what they preach,  they are taking and using the positive benefits from the existing system, much the ways gays are trying to do.

Quote
People who think otherwise and insist on government approved gay marriage are following an agenda that seeks to force others with moral scruples against homosexuality to accept it legally. It is an in-your-face agenda that is typical of Act-Up, PETA, and other radical groups. They also want to be able to have partners inherit social security benefits of their partners, which is the real brass ring of their agenda.

Exactly right because Legal and Moral are two different things.
 Gays are currently subject (forced) to prejudice and abuse from these same easily offended "moral'  majorities. Is their use of force more valid because they are "moral" and a majority?    
 Supporting laws  that in no way negatively effect any "moral" majorities enjoyment of life or liberty is what living together  currently is all about currently.
 Why should gays be subject to force in giving up taxes to pay for a system that schools their oppressors children, pays their oppressors pension offers their oppressors military employment and benefits  and of course grants social security benefits to the remaining PARTNER when the other dies. Why should Gays submit to force and thereby support the legal validity of your "moral" discrimination?
  It is an in your face way for Radical" groups like ours or the the LGBT minority to ensure they do not become subjected to the will of someone elses religious or oppressive political beliefs.  It is the way our country doesnt end up being a theocracy ruled by GWB (not to worry jews he likes you)
  Why would you defend the use of legislation to OPRESS someone from receiving the SAME civil benefits from a system they paid into along with the many non monetary challenges gays face not being allowed to marry?
It seems odd that one who would criticize "radicals" from using the system to enact more laws would SUPPORT the use of MORE laws to make it more difficult for one class of people that make up an easy 10% of the population to receive equal treatment under law...not church, law.  Is it ok to use the law as a weapon as long as your beliefs are included the majorities?

Quote
Other left wing support comes from the "it's for the children" crowd. Legally the state has no authority butting into common law marriages and their progeny.
Yeah yeah yeah but what about the part where the hospital wont let you into the room of your sic spouse or call when their has been an emergency...or when the state funds discriminatory programs paid for by your unfairly and forcefully taken estate taxes.  I understand the gist of your argument but the issue is on the burner and wont go away regardless of this law the next law its appeal or the amendment.  until you can stop the theft from the minority being taken and redistributed to the majority we must come up with better solutions then disrespect for someone valid cause or point.  You cannot hope to reduce the government while allowing socialism to take hold and unify voting blocks because you dont want to stick up for the basic principle of this fight.  In civics NO ones personal moral convictions can be used to oppress or punish another who is not hurting or oppressing someone else.  until Libs, speak up for those fighting for this basic LIB principle they will continue to be associated with the intolerance and coercion  they say they want to escape.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 05:32:23 pm by adonis79 »
Logged
I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of freedom becomes a harness to you,  and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
Kahlil Gibran

adonis79

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • TheFlowerOf SafetyLiesWithin ThePerilousThorns
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2004, 05:31:22 pm »

Quote
If you are opposed to expanding government entitlements, opposed to social security, welfare statism, and government being a polygamous partner in your relationship, then you should be arguing to get government out of marriage, NOT to expand government marriage licensing.
I always argue the Lib. point with people who are not familiar with it, however right now knowing that we agree on this point I think it is more necessary I argue that the "radical" group we are speaking of has a legit point.
 I am arguing that Libs. will continue to garner poor results in elections as long as they associate themselves with candidates and ideas that discriminate against any group.  Even with 8 of ten issues in agreement people who do not support equality or further legislation promoting inequality are no friend of freedom.  I as a gay man must vote for candidates that first respect my right to live without hate directed at me from society...even before I vote for lower taxes and smaller government.  
Am i a socialist, no.
As individualist you may say that this isnt your issue why should you care or worry about taking into consideration gays or abortion rights...whoever while casting your vote or sounding off on their agenda.  I can not argue with that, but that is why this ideal will be unable to become a majority in this country or eventually even in NH....one must attract people under the umbrella of personal fiscal responsibility, freedom,ZAP etc. by helping other platforms by supporting equality and freedom for ALL not just when it is convenient and coincides with your worship.  
There are enough activist that would be able to put down the fist shaking for their cause and apply themselves to FSP or other freedom related ideals if Libs. took the moment to evaluate their sincere, peaceful intention and give them some respect instead of standing by silently while they are bad talked by Lib. bigots.  Who will be there to defend you when the moral crusaders dont like your lifestyle or beliefs freedom lovers?  Shouldnt we be trying to help peoples cause fly under the banner of freedom rather than ostracizing their effort to gain what they understand as freedom from the example of Married Libs?
Perhaps you shouldnt attack me as I am an unmarried long term monogamously coupled person who understands the hardship of the situation as i evermore merge my life and financial situation with my partner.
 I constantly educate people on the libertarian concept of private relationships.  I do not however feel obligated to silently allow "libertarians' to preach the high road while not only not living by their own example they  partake of benefits they begrudge gays for trying to attain themselves...all the while making derogatory remarks about a minority fighting for a cause that they feel conviction for.  Right now gays vote against Lib ideals...that is a potential 30% vote of the majority that is lost because Libs cant really step up to the plate.  You catch more votes with sugar than viniger...and that goes for any minority voting block many who agree with all Lib ideals but are afraid of letting the religious wrong enact more constraints on their freedom.
Maybe you should redirect your critique toward those who would preach the idea of removing state polygamy from gays lives but are afraid to lose all 1100+ "government goodies" they receive by sharing the sanctity of their union with the state.
Quote
Furthermore, if you took the time to study the Vermont Civil Unions law, you will notice that the state, in order to comply with constitutional strictures of equal justice, made the law applicable for anyone, gay or straight, even allowing members of the same family (parents, kids, siblings, etc) to get civil unions.
I have not studied the law.  i am glad to know that gay relationships are treated like that of a mother and child, very innocent  ;D
My question was is separate equal?
  At one time (recent past) this country had separate everything bathrooms drinking fountains etc. so as not to force the moral majority to have to legally accept the equal humanity of another, was separate equal?  Many of those who discriminated against blacks used religion (the same religious doctrine used now against gays) as their reason for legal exclusion, so it sounds similar in nature to this argument.
 In this issue "activist" judges started ruling that  blacks  should be entitled to use civic facilities and programs despite objections from the straight white moral majority.  
Today most outwardly accept the underlying thought that all men are created equal as a means of creating civic law that doesnt indorse any form of bigotry and even goes so far as to protect the moral majority from having to contribute church funds to public or civic life thereby separating church and state.  
 As my mom said if you share with one kid in the class you had best have enough to share with the rest of the kids in the class...civics 101, all those who currently contribute are entitled to the same treatment...including pensions.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 05:50:20 pm by adonis79 »
Logged
I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of freedom becomes a harness to you,  and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
Kahlil Gibran

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2004, 07:21:34 pm »

The fact is that outside of social security benefits inheritance, almost all other benefits of marriage can be replicated under a business partnership contract which also includes living wills and mutual powers of attorney. Properly dealt with, you even get to visit your lover in the hospital.  You may even write a clause in your living will that requires the hospital to refuse visitation to parents and siblings of you and your partner if they refuse to allow the partner to visit. Making your partner your power of attorney under a living will cleans all this up.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

adonis79

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • TheFlowerOf SafetyLiesWithin ThePerilousThorns
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2004, 09:37:05 pm »

   ;) Gotcha partner so I assume that is a no, seperate is not equal.  So aside from not benifiting from the system that i am forced to pay into and aside from having special legal bills and complicated arrangements that a straight couple wont have to concider, I assure you that there are numerous other problems constructing daily life that you couldnt fathom but that aside...Seperate is still not equal and equality starts with each of us.  
Logged
I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of freedom becomes a harness to you,  and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
Kahlil Gibran

Justin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 686
  • So... these are going to be my neighbors?!
Re:NH House on Gay Marriage?
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2004, 12:35:09 am »

This thread was about the NH legislature's activities, not another debate about gay marriage.  Thanks for the derailing, punks.

Logged
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot
Pages: [1]   Go Up