Gay Marriage Legal in New Hampshire

A month ago I noted that New Hampshire was expected to become the sixth state where gay marriage is legal. Today it did. It is the second state, after Maine, where the legislature, rather than a court, has extended marriage to same-sex couples. 

Reason coverage of gay marriage here.

Comments

[IceTrey]

When are you guys going to stop calling it “gay” marriage and start calling it what it is “same sex” marriage. After all two straight guys or girls could marry. Which actually sounds like a great idea. All the tax and health benefits and you could still date members of the opposite sex!

[Halcyon]

Wasn’t it a court ruling that made it so that they had to offer some sort of gay marriage or civil union in the first place?

[Chris Berez]

Lynch signed a bill into law in 2007 allowing for civil unions. I don’t remember there being a court order involved, but I could be wrong. This latest bill was definitely not a result of a court order. It was an act of the legislature deciding that “separate” can never be “equal”.

Like Jacob said, this new law is purely an act of the legislature. So even if there was a court order involved with the ’07 civil unions law, it doesn’t matter.

[Syd]

I thought Vermont was first (overriding the governor’s veto), Maine second, and New Hampshire third.

[jimmy]

New Hampshire was the first state to allow civil unions without a court challenge. Although as I understand these things it was expressly so that politicians would be given a grace period before same-sex marriage would be an issue. Oops.

[laughs]

All gays wanting to be married when have to move to the Northeast, because they sure as hell won’t be moving to Iowa.

[ed]

IceTrey | June 3, 2009, 7:26pm | #

When are you guys going to stop calling it “gay” marriage and start calling it what it is: “same sex” marriage. After all two straight guys or girls could marry.

What IceTrey said. Let us think outside the political/hysterical box for a moment, shall we? Ponder this hypothetical: You’re a single male (or female) with no wife (or husband) or children, who has paid your extorted Social Security tax for many years. When you die, having no legal beneficiaries for your SS “account,” your accrued “savings” will revert back to the state, or more accurately, simply disappear without a trace. Are there any civil-libertarian economists (if there is such a species) who have pondered the long-term consequences of two straight men (or women) marrying in order to circumvent SS’s rigid heterosexual beneficiary rules? It’s something to consider, no?

[Georgie W]

OMG!!! I think I just got hit in the head by a peice of the sky!!!!

[runescape gold]

Yeah! New Hampshire gives gays and lesbians a chance to marry, while shoving it up the asses of their trans population. Let’s celebrate!

[Some Guy]

Are there any civil-libertarian economists (if there is such a species) who have pondered the long-term consequences of two straight men (or women) marrying in order to circumvent SS’s rigid heterosexual beneficiary rules? It’s something to consider, no?

I haven’t read the rules in question, but I can’t imagine what they could possibly say that they would need to be tweaked at all, or at worst very slightly, to accommodate this.

[SugarFree]

Oh, Washington State… when will you make Episiarch’s dreams come true?

[Rhywun]

Yeah! New Hampshire gives gays and lesbians a chance to marry, while shoving it up the asses of their trans population.

Huh? Unless there’s a specific “no trannies” clause, this should allow them to marry whomever they want. I don’t see your point.

[Syd]

I think it allows transsexuals to marry themselves. Or maybe just hermaphrodites.

[The State of California]

Better not find none of them thar married queers comin’ round these parts!

[Syd]

Once again a state condemns eunuchs to a life without marriage.

[Well-lubricated Slope]

Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

[Elemenope]

Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

Yup.

The State of California | June 4, 2009, 12:05am | #
Better not find none of them thar married queers comin’ round these parts!

Nah, they can come if they are already married. Just don’t be lookin’ to get married here.

[Syd]

Eunuchs and transexuals first. One battle at a time.

[Divorce Lawyer]

*pops champaign cork*

[prolefeed]

Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

Sort of. I’m for state-sponsored marriage if the state has no discretion to turn down any combination of people wanting that legal package of rights and obligations.

If the state still has the discretion to refuse anyone, then no.

My first choice would still be to get the state out of the marriage business in its entirety, but either way of disempowering the state in this matter works for me.

[Sosnowski]

As a New Hampshirvian in exile, I must congratulate my state on using the correct channels to reach its absurd decision. Bravo.

[tanstaafl!]

Line marriages rule!

[Tom G]

I also support polygamy or group marriage being legalized. I do recognize that it’s a LOT more complex than allowing same-sex marriage.

[MJ]

In related news the New Hampshire legislature voted to rename oranges to “apples”.

[Solana]

Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

*raises hand

Uh… yeah.

[MNG]

As a married man I can say that there are corresponding obligations that are sure to make two straight folks that don’t love each other think twice about getting hitched. For one thing, you pay more taxes when you are married (remember the “marriage penalty?”)

[Bruce Majors]

Hey IceTrey, politically correct much? Don’t you mean it should be called LGBTQC marriage? I mean, saying it is “same sex” marriage means that you are saying two human beings who refuse a specific sex or gender assignment, and may be transitioning from one thing to another, cannot be married, since they are not the same sex.

Whether gay marriage is legal in the US or not is small potatoes. The main benefit we have been missing is that we gays have been taxed for decades to feed the Social Security ponzi scheme but our partners and their kids could not get survivor benefits. The fact that Demwits discovered gay marriage as a wedge issue exactly as the Social Security system is going to start cutting back benefits so that we still won’t get them is curious no? I think they just want all the old gay men to marry and import young Latino guys so they can have a new workforce to tax.

I want to marry a European and get EU citizenship anyway. Any cute libertarian men should feel free to contact me.

[MNG]

“If the state still has the discretion to refuse anyone, then no.”

Way to let the perfect be the enemy of the good goofball.

I guess you are against any tax reduction too on the grounds of being against all taxes.

[R C Dean]

Well-lubricated Slope

Can we leave the racial slurs out of our handles, at least?

[kinnath]

Can we leave the racial slurs out of our handles, at least?

G o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a l !

[kinnath]

Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

Let’s not forget incestuous relationships as well!

[MNG]

Can man-dog marriage be far behind?

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

Yes, yes all relationships should be legal. But I don’t particularly care for packages of special privileges bestowed on people just b/c they shack up. Said as someone happily single.

[d brin]

Can man-dog marriage be far behind?

Only after dogs have been uplifted and can make informed consent . . .

[conventional wisdom]

Said as someone happily single.

Clearly delusionaly . . . .

[Rhywun]

“I think they just want all the old gay men to marry and import young Latino guys”

I have no problem with that.

[Rhywun]

“But I don’t particularly care for packages of special privileges bestowed on people just b/c they shack up.”

I don’t especially care one way or the other for monetary favors, but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the ability to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member of society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For example.

[bob42]

re: Polygamy. If a guy is stupid enough to take on two wives, the government should not stop him.

Likewise, the government should not prohibit the free association that is oral sex. Today, laws prohibiting that act (regardless of the gender of the participants) are still on the books in about a dozen states and the District of Columbia.

That’s right. Blowjobs are illegal in Washington D.C.

Now that same sex marriage is becoming legal in more places, maybe we’ll get a chance to test Pat Robertson’s slippery slope theory
that sex with ducks will follow.

[kwais]

Well-lubricated Slope | June 4, 2009, 12:28am | #
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group marriage?

Yes,

I am against state sponsored marriage. But as far as it goes, polygaminst, and polyamorous people have as much a right as anyone else.

More so than gays, because they can produce kids, and it is an older tradition.

Actually, I think they rate marriage more than monogamous heterosexuals, because mostly monogamous heterosexuals are just dating really. Even the catholics these days.

[kwais]

I don’t especially care one way or the other for monetary favors, but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the ability to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member of society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For example.

I wholly agree with that.

But I am not sure that you should have to marry for that.

I mean, I might like to bring in a female partner from overseas. But I really don’t want to do the marriage thing.

[short, fat bastard]

I don’t especially care one way or the other for monetary favors, but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the ability to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member of society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For example.

Well, if you could buy him, then you could bring him into the US. Of course, you would need to declare him and pay the appropriate duties.

[Zeb]

“More so than gays, because they can produce kids, and it is an older tradition.”

This is always a crap argument. By this reasoning, straight people who can’t or don’t want to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. And loads of gay people do have kids, even if it is not possible for both members of a couple to be biological parents.

As a New Hampshire resident, I can fill you in on some of the other details as well. There was no court case prompting either the civil union or gay marriage laws.
The reference to trannies getting the short end of the stick refers to a bill which did not pass a few months ago which was intended to guarantee rights to transsexuals in places of public accommodation. Opponents called it the “bathroom bill”.

[Rhywun]

But I am not sure that you should have to marry for that.

Well, that’s a different battle.

The reference to trannies getting the short end of the stick refers to a bill which did not pass a few months ago

Ah, OK. Thx for the clarification.

[kwais]

By this reasoning, straight people who can’t or don’t want to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

I am not into “not allowing” very much of anything. They should be allowed to do as they will so long as it doesn’t harm another.

But, as the great and once prolific commenter brought to my attention about marriage, “what is the difference between that and dating?”

Or something like that. It used to be that when you were married, you couldn’t leave that person at will. But we have moved beyond that.

See, I am generally against marriage, I am for dating, and if you have kids, you have some kind of legal ramifications.

But if any group of people are going to engage in the antiquated anachronistic social custom known as marriage, it should be the polygamists.

[kwais]

Rhywun | June 4, 2009, 12:57pm | #
But I am not sure that you should have to marry for that.

Well, that’s a different battle.

Same battle, different aspect.

I mean my take on the whole gay marriage thing, as I read in these pages is that it is a lot about “what about me”

The gays, think they are left out, rightly so, because they are oppressed by the government, as we all are, but they don’t have some of the loopholes that straight people have that want to get married.

The singles, (that want to stay single) are left out because everybody is fighting for the gays rights, but we that are single don’t seem to have a voice. I want to bring my hottie back to America for fun and companionship, but don’t want to get married. I don’t want to ask the state for permission. I don’t want to be committing a crime by the military if I break up and want to have sex with someone else, before the government says I am broke up.

IDK, I am not finding my voice, or my thoughts clearly today.

But basically, I don’t want to ask for the governments permission to be with anyone. I don’t want the government to decide how much I or anyone else should pay taxes based on whether the govt says they are married.

That and the government is actually oppressive to everyone.

A very good friend of mine is married to a foreigner, and has money for attorneys and all that crap, and is having the damnest time getting her back to the states so she can be with him in his house. He has travelled the rest of the world with her, but can’t get her back to the US.

I wonder how it works with the Russian bride thingy.

I mean, I can see where you are coming from. As hard as my friend has it, at least there is a law allowing him to bring back his honey. You have no such recognition. And that IS bs.

[IceTrey]

@Bruce Majors

Well if they aren’t of the same sex (officially) they can get “regular” married. Do you call a union between a man and a women “straight marriage”? No? Because in all states a gay man can legally marry a gay women. Basically these laws mean that any two people, no matter their sex, can get married. “Gay marriage” implies that it is about a persons SEXUALITY not their SEX. There’s a difference.

[John C. Randolph]

How can they do this? Don’t they know that Obama, the source of all truth and goodness in this country is opposed to same-sex marriage?

-jcr

[infant]

Yeah! New Hampshire gives gays and lesbians a chance to marry, while shoving it up the asses of their trans population. Let’s celebrate!

[jordan shoes]

mbt shoes
mbt shoes sale

[jordan shoes]

mbt shoes
mbt shoes sale

[jordan shoes]

Thank you for sharing out

[gucci shoes]

The worst way to miss someone is to be sitting right beside them knowing you can’t have them.

[rs money]

good good good