The New Hampshire legislature has passed a bill that legalizes civil unions for homosexuals — the first time civil unions have been legalized in a state without a court order or the threat of one. Gov. John Lynch plans to sign it.
“To me this legislation is a credit to our state. We’re making this move not because some court someplace is telling us that we must,” Democratic Sen. Joe Foster said. “We do so today because it is the right thing to do.”
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
42 Comments
Every state should have a similar law BUT the law should apply to regular couples that do not wish to marry as well as gays. People should not be forced to be married if they do not wish to do so.
Doesn’t Kansas also have common law?
But yeah! I agree! Legalize gay marriage. If they want to call it a union, that’s fine.
I suppose honeyMoon is going to be taking on a whole new meaning in New Hampshire now.
Funny — poignant !!
Kev – absolutely correct. In fact, they should remove the term “marriage” from Caeser’s legal system and completely replace it with Union. Leave the Rites of the Church IN the Church.
When I got married so many years ago I actually got married TWICE in the same day. Once when we filled out paperwork for the Government (Caeser) and once when we had Mass.
Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s …
I’m so glad that our liberal leaders up there are doing something good because it’s the right thing to do.
I think Kansas shelved its common law marriage when the marriage amendment passed
Tom Paine, see K.S.A. 23-101(b); the above limits the existence of a common law marriage to those where both parties are age 18 or older. Thus, common law marriages still exist in Kansas, so long as the same are between members of the opposite sex.
“…adult members of the opposite sex.”
Civil unions are a mockery of the institution of marriage, but the homosexual agenda won’t stop there.The Californicatia state Assembly is again attempting to mandate pro-sodomy indoctrination in K-12 public schools, previously vetoed, but mostly already implemented in Los Angeles schools. Some of the proposed requirements:- “Mom” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” would have to be edited from all texts, as insensitive terms.- Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.- Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.- Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.- A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women’s restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men’s room.- Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned as insensitive.. . .Elsewhere, members of the European Parliament from France, the Netherlands and Italy, among others, vilified Poland as “hateful” and “repulsive” for refusing to allow pro-sodomy indoctrination in schools, and passed a resolution calling for a fact-finding mission to be sent to Poland, for “worldwide de-criminalization of homosexuality”.The leaders of EU governing body indicated that there was to be no tolerance for ideas which would view homosexual acts as unnatural, in contradiction with the European human rights convention and the EU charter on fundamental rights.The homosexual agenda is targeting and recruiting your children in public schools – worldwide.(Colossians 3:4-8)
That has to be the worst homophobic rant I have read since Fred Phelps.
A lot of very reasonable folks, Bob, while not discriminating against homosexuals themselves, resist the agenda such as described above.
Although I don’t personally object to civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, the agenda does not stop there. It is an agenda out to change society in a fundamental way. That is what I object to.
P_Mom, your 10:01 post upthread is the first time in quite a while that I’ve heard New Hampshire politicians referred to as “liberal leaders”.
outlander, I would suggest society is changing in ways uncomfortable to many, and the resistance thereto is being demonstrated by opposition to how these societal changes are to be treated within the framework of laws, etc.
New Hampshire, Vermont. Two rather conservative old-fashioned Yankee states. Both with a lot of COMMON SENSE!
What agenda? There is no recruiting of homosexuals, they are born that way. All they are asking is equal ability to have a legally recognized union with the partner of their choice. There is no agenda as noted.
I have never understood why people are so scared of homosexuals. They don’t harm anybody. While I don’t think homosexuality is “normal” behaviour I do think that it is the right of adults to engage in whatever kind of relationships they want. While the thought of penetrating another man’s anus with my penis sickens me personally it is NOT my place to tell other adults not to do it.
I think the talking tub of margarine’s rant was cut and pasted from a right wing fundamentalist christian website.
It is also complete and utter garbage. No one is seriously proposing outlawing prom kings and queens, and I call on Parkay to provide bill number and line to indicate that the Califorinia Assembly is proposing such an action. This is just taking slippery slope paranoia to the extreme. It’s pathetic religious right wing fear mongering.
I wonder, Civil Unions…
George and Mark WashingtonThomas and Bill JeffersonAbraham and Steven LincolnFranklin and Jonathan Roosevelt
Just doesn’t quite do the same thing for me for some reason…
No one said you had to join in, unless you want to, Republican. BTW – didn’t you say that you have never been married?
I’d like to see Parkay substantiate the rest of his silly claims.
” – “Mom” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” would have to be edited from all texts, as insensitive terms.
Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned as insensitive.”
Show us some evidence Parkay!
Having been married almost 36 years I wonder just why these crazies like Parkay are so insecure in their own identity.
Maybe he is a follower of Pharisee Phred.
Correction, Bob.
Republican said he was married to a liberal Jewish woman.
Wow Parkay must be one of the Phelp’s clan.
New Hampshire has a Democratic Governor, went for Kerry in 04..
How is that conservative?
Parkay, outie,I have, over my lifetime, had hundreds of gay and lesbian friends, and have been active in gay rights longer than most gays. The only agenda any of them have is to live their lives in peace, with the same god-given rights everyone else has. The “gay agenda” you put forth is the invention of anti-gay preachers; propaganda, pure and simple!
“Correction, Bob.
Republican said he was married to a liberal Jewish woman.”
This would be a marriage made in hell if true. And probably one that will not stand the test of time. Usually interracial, interfaith, interpolitical and interclass unions fail. The more you have in common with your spouse, the more likely you will succeed.
I don’t agree, what makes a marriage successful is the commitment to make it work, not how much people have in common.
As far as the subject..everyone in this country should have the same rights, no matter what nationality, gender, age, race, religion, or sexual orientation they happen to be. Good for New Hampshire!
Actually Capn, I’m not married. I have seen some very beautiful Jewish American Princesses that were quite Liberal that I would have loved to have the opportunity to marry.
In your dreams, Republican.
Yes that’s right Bob, in my dreams.
That’s all you have Republican, wet dreams, if you are lucky. No real chance at a Jewish Princess.
Mary,I was married for 20yrs to a truly extraordinary woman; very small (4′8″, 80lbs on a good day), much in the same sense that a stick of dynamite is small.She had polio when she was 3yrs old, that left her lower body mostly paralysed. It didn’t stop her from doing much of anything! She was a fine musician, historian and writer/poet, very,very bright.I can’t say we had a lot in common, but she was quite good at things I wasn’t, and I was good at things she couldn’t do well. We made it work together that way, and it worked fairly well.
There are always exceptions but every study I have ever seen says the same thing- the more you and your spouse share in common, the more likely it is that your vows will really mean “for life”. And the “big 3″ which are race, religion and social-economic class are the most important. That doesn’t mean you won’t make it if you don’t have those things in common but the chances are less.
My husband and I are opposite, too. I like that because it makes for a lot of interesting discussions and debate. He’s a republican who voted for Bush (THAT was hard for me!). We disagree on lots of issues, we have different priorities, we came from different backgrounds. At times it’s been hard, but in the 36 yrs we’ve been married, we’ve both become very tolerant, accepting, and more open minded about a lot of things. We’ve influenced each other in positive ways and some things we’re still very polarized on. That’s OK, variety IS the spice of life…at least it’s never been boring in our house. Our kids can attest the the fact that there were LOTS of “lively” discussions around the dinner table while they were growing up!
The pro-sodomy Equality California group reported on the passage in the state Assembly of SB 777, authored by lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl, which would mandate gender-neutral, queer-neutral, marriage-neutral standards in public schools.See pro-sodomy pagehttp://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=40337&ct=3790061- – -For the real intent behind this bill of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and recruit schoolchildren, see pro-marriage pagehttp://www.capitolresource.org/web/Current-Capitol-Update.html
What are you afraid of, Tub O’ Butter? Are you feeling a little queer tonight?
You might want to stop that kinda stuff.
Maybe the prez can help him out:
According to those who went to college with W, where he specifically chose a flaming gay roomate, say he ‘plays for the other team’, and was known to be good for a hummer all over the dorm. Do throat wounds count? I doubt he stopped while in the Natl. Guard fighting Democrats.
Parkay. I read your link and don’t see anything that indicates anything about editing texts to take “Mom”, “Dad”, “husband”, or “wife” out of textbooks (in fact, I have never, EVER, met a person who is gay who refuses to use those terms). Nor did I see anything about outlawing prom kings and queens. Your link doesn’t even talk about mandating “gender neutral” language. It talks about standardizing state non-discrimination law.
That being said, and pointing out that I find your opinion on this subject utterly reprehensible and downright evil (civil unions and same sex marriages do not threaten other marriages, period), I at least acknowledge your attempt to reference primary source material. It still is clear to me that what you are doing is employing an extreme slippery slope argument, and it doesn’t hold up. Earlier non-discrimination laws, for example, have not prohibited the use of terms related to “race” or ethnicity.
Ksagnostic,
I did more than read just read the EQCA link given by Parkay; I read the proposed bill (California SB777) in its entirety, plus the California statutes it amends.
I’ll be blunt.
Parkay is a liar.
California SB777 does none of the things Parkay claims. It’s essentially a cleanup bill that clarifies language. It also removes repetitive enumerations of “race, creed,color, sex, religion, or national origin ,” and refers the California education statutes that define protected classes under law.
Parkay and his ilk count on the fact that not everyone is comfortable reading legislation, statutes, etc.
What Parkay hates is that “sexual orientation” is one of those protected classes.
Too effing bad.
PS: I’m back from Topeka. So yes, Republican, sometimes a lobbyist’s work IS done. More on that later.
“California SB777 does none of the things Parkay claims. It’s essentially a cleanup bill that clarifies language. It also removes repetitive enumerations of “race, creed,color, sex, religion, or national origin ,” and refers the California education statutes that define protected classes under law.”
Thanks Tom. I figured as much, based on what I did read from the link. It’s hardly surprising you would be able to provide the correct context.
Thanks for all the good work you do Tom. I think we’re going to get there.
Oh, and obviously Tom you REALLY referenced primary source material, the bill itself.
I guess the best thing that can really be said about Parkay is that he did link to something that was not regurgitating his point of view. His interpretation was very, very wrong (whether he was lying or just plain bullshitting [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780691122946&itm=1, I don’t know and really don’t care).
Ken,You better be careful; there are thousands of angry gay people who would burn down your house for implying, even in jest, that Bush could be in any way identified with them!
Yeah, you guys can have Bush. The gays have standards, you know. There are levels of desperation that even we won’t go to…