http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31090983?GT1=43001

 

 

 

CONCORD, New Hampshire - New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch who personally opposes gay marriage signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

 

After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

 

Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.

 

 

 

"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities and respect under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.

 

 

 

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

 

 

 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

 

 

 

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

 

 

 

The New Hampshire law will take effect Jan. 1, exactly two years after the state began recognizing civil unions.

 

 

 

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, elected in New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was among those celebrating the new law.

 

 

 

"It's about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens," Robinson said.

 

 

 

"There are a lot of people standing here who when we grew up could not have imagined this," he said. "You can't imagine something that is simply impossible. It's happened, in our lifetimes."

 

 

 

Opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process.

 

 

 

"It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

 

 

 

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

 

 

 

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

 

 

 

The House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.

 

 

 

Supporters had considered Wednesday their last chance to pass a bill this year.

 

 

 

The law will establish civil and religious marriage licenses and allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples already in civil unions will automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage."

 

 

 

Churches will be able to decide whether to conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

 

 

 

New Hampshire's decision leaves Rhode Island as the only New England state not to allow same-sex marriages. A bill there is expected to fail this year, as similar ones have in previous years.

 

 

 

New Hampshire is the sixth US state to legalise gay marriage. Discuss.

My view and stance on this is the same as it is with every other state that passes and in the future, would pass this. Their choice in the matter, not mine. But what caught my eye the most was the states involved that have already passed it and the last line made me laugh.

 

 

 

New Hampshire's decision leaves Rhode Island as the only New England state not to allow same-sex marriages. A bill there is expected to fail this year, as similar ones have in previous years.

 

 

 

It's all New England states plus Iowa. :P I didn't notice that until this news.

Slowly but surely.

That's great news! Hopefully it won't be too long before it's legalised all over America. Definitely a step in the right direction :

Another state one step further in civilization :thumbup:

44 left.

That's good. I don't really understand NOT letting them, to be honest.

This is just one step in the right direction. I'm honestly surprised that New Hampshire didn't do it sooner, tbh. What with "Live Free or Die" and all that stuff.

 

 

 

Of course, the news that Maine may be overturning it's gay marriage law is a bit disheartening.

 

 

 

EDIT: noticed a spelling error #-o

I have to commend the governor on this one. For personally opposing gay marriage, I give him some serious credit for still signing the bill after the necessary compromises he got put in.

Let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage but advertise cannibalism? Haha.

 

If it makes two people happy then why should anybody else have a problem with it?

Let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage but advertise cannibalism? Haha.

 

If it makes two people happy then why should anybody else have a problem with it?

 

Religious views get in the way of many things.

Let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage but advertise cannibalism? Haha.

 

If it makes two people happy then why should anybody else have a problem with it?

 

 

 

I was speaking about the governor's clear moral fiber for voting for human rights even if he had a personal disagreement; I very strongly support gay marriage.

Let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage but advertise cannibalism? Haha.

 

If it makes two people happy then why should anybody else have a problem with it?

 

 

 

I was speaking about the governor's clear moral fiber for voting for human rights even if he had a personal disagreement; I very strongly support gay marriage.

 

Oh HE opposes gay marriage. I get you now haha thought you meant you personally, my bad #-o

I have to commend the governor on this one. For personally opposing gay marriage, I give him some serious credit for still signing the bill after the necessary compromises he got put in.

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know what else he has done.. but this event proves him to be a worthy leader. He recognizes the majority want the bill to pass, and doesn't let his personal feelings disrupt such a large movement.

Let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage but advertise cannibalism? Haha.

 

If it makes two people happy then why should anybody else have a problem with it?

 

 

 

I was speaking about the governor's clear moral fiber for voting for human rights even if he had a personal disagreement; I very strongly support gay marriage.

 

Oh HE opposes gay marriage. I get you now haha thought you meant you personally, my bad #-o

 

 

 

No problem, the wording isn't exactly wonderful.

Took them long enough :lol:

Well done New Hampshire! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

If people are gay then they're gonna be gay whether you legalize marriage or not, may as well let them be happily gay rather than outcast.

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality

 

No, it doesn't. It implies it, perhaps. But it does not definitely condemn homosexuality. (That's a debate for another time and another thread, which is my way of saying I don't feel like arguing) And you're right, it's not like something should be banned just because it's [supposedly] a sin.

 

Go New Hampshire. I'm straight, and I'm Christian, but I support gay marriage so it's good news to hear.

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

 

If you want a seperation of church and state, you shouldn't be living in the US in the first place (I don't know if you live there though).

Good, another State realising human rights apply to all.

 

 

 

Do some states still consider Sodomy illegal? I remember 4-5 years ago a couple of Southern states had outlawed sodomy to try and combat homosexuality, or something like that.

[hide=]

Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality

[/hide]

 

No, it doesn't. It implies it, perhaps. But it does not definitely condemn homosexuality. (That's a debate for another time and another thread, which is my way of saying I don't feel like arguing) And you're right, it's not like something should be banned just because it's [supposedly] a sin.

 

Go New Hampshire. I'm straight, and I'm Christian, but I support gay marriage so it's good news to hear.

 

 

 

Nor do I. I realize that others may not see it the same way I do. The point is that although I do see it as a sin, I don't agree with purely religious arguments being used in public policy. Not everyone is a Christian (or believes it is a sin).

 

 

 

[hide=]

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

[/hide]

 

If you want a seperation of church and state, you shouldn't be living in the US in the first place (I don't know if you live there though).

 

 

 

I don't so much want a separation, I'm just annoyed with Christians that stick their noses where they don't belong. And yes I do live in the US, but not necessarily by choice. I'm only 19 and still in college. Weather I relocate at a later time, we'll see.

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

 

If you want a seperation of church and state, you shouldn't be living in the US in the first place (I don't know if you live there though).

 

 

 

Actually, separation of church and state is supposed to be a principle of the United States, due to it being founded on religious equality and freedom. You can't have that if the Christian religion goes hand in hand with government, now can you?

I do not agree with homosexuality. However, it is not my right to tell them not to be like that. Therefore, I'm neutral on this subject.

yay, more human rights progress. USA! USA!......

 

 

 

i really dont see whats wrong with homosexuality or why people see it as wrong (except for the christians and bible believers.) But as someone said earlier, thats a different thread, different time.