NH Marriage Equality Repeal Vote Delayed


The New Hampshire Legislature will not vote this month on a Republican-led repeal of the state’s marriage equality law, with action being delayed until late February at its earliest.

Via the Eagle Tribune:

The issue was not on the House calendar, but lawmakers expected to cast their votes, she said.

But Republican House leaders have delayed the vote on gay marriage, House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, R-Salem, said yesterday.

“The legislation will not be considered for a floor vote until February,” Bettencourt said in an email.

“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage,” he said. “It’s critical to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”

A vote had been expected anytime between January 11 and January 18 but a formal vote on House Bill 437 was never actually scheduled.

Democratic legislators who were prepared to vote no on the bill have accused the Republicans of failing to get enough support for the legislation, or at least not enough to overcome Gov. Lynch’s veto, saying that they are using delay tactics in the hope of mustering the votes at a later date. As no formal tally of support exists this must remain speculation however.

The legislation would overturn the state’s same-sex marriage law making it the first state to do so through the legislative process. Specifically, the bill seeks to replace marriage equality with civil unions for unmarried adults including relatives, denoting it as a designee status rather than one specifically designed to cater for romantic relationships. The law would, as such, be a massive step down from the former partnership rights and status conferred by the state’s existing same-sex marriage law.

It is thought that approximately 2,000 same-sex couples have married since the state legalized marriage equality just over two years ago.

statewide poll conducted in February of last year found that 63 percent of voters oppose attempts to overturn the same-sex marriage law, while 92 percent of all voters agree that the state’s political leadership should focus on economic issues over social issues.

Entrepreneur Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway, recently joined Standing Up for New Hampshire Families to fight against the repeal.

Related Reading:

Santorum: Better a Convict Father than Same-Sex Parents

NH House to Vote on Gay Marriage Repeal Bids, Rep. Elliot Apologizes for False Gay Sex Ed. Claims

Starting the New Year with “I Do”: New Hampshire Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages from Midnight


Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to netsu.


Winn Adams
Winn A6 years ago

Thanks for the update.

Robert O.
Robert O6 years ago

Marriage is a consitutional right that is for ALL people not just some. I'm also getting sick and tired of people correlating their religious beliefs to justify their hatred and intolerance of those they fear or hate. It only serves to highlight how there needs to be more love and acceptance of others and separation of church and state. Equal rights are human rights.

Lynn Squance
Lynn S6 years ago

May the vote be gone forever. Everybody should have the right to marry the person of their choice. Everybody should have the freedom to find happiness in another. Actually, isn't it in the constitution ... the pursuit of happiness?

This Republican/Teabagger state needs to get its head out of its ass and do right by ALL the people.

Holly Lawrence
Holly Lawrence6 years ago

So true - Government has not right in marriage choice ...Let people vote and be heard - NOW!

Lauren F.
Lauren F6 years ago

marriage should be available for everyone.

Dr Clue
Dr Clue6 years ago

(@Rob D.) [ These matters should be voted on by the people - all voters should have a say, and if they choose, as in CA, to prohibit such behavior, then that should be the law ]

So if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery , you would be good with that?

We have a constitutionally based government designed to prevent such things as "mob rule".

Fred Krohn
Fred Krohn6 years ago

The entire marriage issue should be removed from government control; government should only issue 'Civil Union' certificates to any consenting adult groups establishing common households. The issuing church would define the 'marriage' on an individual basis, including allowable participants, vows, contracts, and oaths, and would also include a civil union with it. Naturally this means legal issues are covered by the Civil Union and that marriage is for religious or ceremonial purposes. Catholic, Baptist, and similar churches could issue heterosexual monogamous weddings, while Hindu, Unitarian, and pagan churches would define marriage in their own way, and Socialist liberal extremists and theocratic conservative extremists wouldn't have any say over other people's marriages. Both 'major parties' are totally wrong on these issues.

Tom Pearce
Tom Pearce6 years ago

The very idea of it being a state law really tears me a new one! A federal law is ALL that is needed and should over power any state laws. I am not sure why we have gotten off on this kick about smaller fed gov and bigger state gov. Its a ridiculous idea from the Republican side. Can you imagine 50 different state laws for marriage?

Cathryn C.
Cathryn C6 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage If these forms of marriage can exit without everyone popping a blood vessel over them, why can't LGBT pratmerships exist with all the rights, problems and joys inherent in them as well?

Cathryn C.
Cathryn C6 years ago

@Jean w ... Laws allowing for marriage between relatives have long been on the books in most states..Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx Neither side can really kvetch about that.

LGBT marriage would have no effects on that. Domestic partnerships have been recognized for years as well (male/female) in the form of common law marriages. Common-law marriage, sometimes called sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of interpersonal status that is legally recognized in limited jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry. A common-law marriage is legally binding in some common law jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others. In some jurisdictions without true common-law marriages, the term "common-law marriage" is used as a synonym for non-marital relationships such as domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries relationship. A sui juris marriage might only apply in the United States in this form. http:/