- Supporters of marriage equality wore red to Thursday’s hearing. (From HRC)
Back in 2009, when Democrats controlled the New Hampshire Legislature, lawmakers there voted to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Gov. John Lynch signed the legislation into law.
Now, two years later, Republicans control the Legislature in New Hampshire, and are considering a bill to repeal marriage equality in the state. On Thursday, the House of Representatives held a public hearing to get citizens’ input on the repeal effort. More than 500 people were there to oppose repeal while less than 50 showed up to support repeal.
While the supporters were far fewer in number, their arguments are getting a lot of attention in the press today — because those arguments were so totally asinine.
One guy claimed that allowing legal same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy and Sharia (Islamic religious) law in the U.S. Rep. Alfred Baldasaro claimed that New Hampshire would end up like Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage several years ago and now “they’re fighting in the courts to get three husbands, three wives.”
And Sen. Fenton Groen brought up the age-old indoctrinating-the-children and “health risk” bugaboos: “[Homosexuality] will significantly increase their risk of serious disease and can be expected to significantly shorten their lives.”
The National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher was there, of course, spouting her usual nonsense about marriage being specifically about raising children and how same-sex marriage would infringe on religious freedom.
For more, check out jpmassar’s post at Daily Kos or watch the video after the jump compiled by Igor Volsky at Think Progress.
Just so you know, John Lynch is still governor of New Hampshire, and he has said if the repeal bill is passed by the Legislature, he will veto it, although Republicans have a supermajority in both legislative houses and could override a veto. On the other hand, the House committee considering the repeal measure is expected to vote to “retain” it, which means hold the bill over until the next legislative session (which starts next January) and not vote on it this time around.
As someone who is deeply involved in stopping polygamy in Canada, I am pig-sick of seeing the red herring, “If you allow same-sex marriage then polygamy will automatically follow.” Same sex marriage still involves only two people, both of whom hwve equal rights in the relationship. Polygamy, on the other hand, is one man collecting women as if they were coews in a barn, and where only the first, LEGAL wife has any rights. The remaining women are merely concubines in the man’s harem, and are not entitled to share in his health insurance, life insurance, dental insurance, pension benefits, or equal inheritance of his property should he die. Their position, and the position of their children, is without security, and why any woman would put herself and her children in such a vulnerable position beats me. Moreover, while the man can enjoy a sex-fest every night, the women have to line up and take their turn, and be in the humiliating position of hoping the man will not favor other women over themselves. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women were considered chattels, goods to be traded among men. The year is 2011 AD, not 2011 BC. Polygamy has no place whatsover in today’s modern society, and should be kicked into the garbage can of history, where it belongs.
NOBODY sees this irony!
Any law banning same sex marriage is based on religion. It’s theocratic.
Banning same sex marriage OPENS THE DOOR to religious laws, including laws from Islam.
These people against marriage equality have it TOTALLY bass-ackwards.
“Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”
I sometimes feel like I’m living in some Orwellian parallel universe where “two legs bad” and “1+1=3.”
Jancis wrote” Their position, and the position of their children, is without security, and why any woman would put herself and her children in such a vulnerable position beats me”. This is not really true in Canada. Saskatchewan recognizes and even forces married people to become the subsequent sametime spouse of others. Their provincial legilstaion allows and promotes multiple same time spouses. The legal rights of the subsequent spouses are subject to the rights of the first in spouse, so its all fair in that regards.
Lynda,
Polygamy in Canada is illegal. It is also illegal for justice officials to condone or be party to a consent for any person to have more than one spouse at any given time. Canadian laws of property are built around the concept of people settling their existing marriages by divorce or death before they can engage innocent subsequent spouses with the baggage of legal entanglements from a previous marriage. This system has worked well for hundreds of years.