New Hampshire House rejects Religious Amendment to Marriage Bill: Will Gov. Lynch Veto?

Last week, Gov. Lynch said he’d sign a same-gender “marriage” bill if the legislature passed a religious-protection amendment to the bill. The religious amendment was problematic for several reasons. Mainly its protection was flimsy by definition (a court could easily overrule it at some point down the road). Second, it didn’t protect commercial businesses from refusing to provide services because of their own conscience or religious beliefs.

Update From CPR Action:

First, Senate Passes Gay Marriage
Then House Defeats Gay Marriage

CPR-Action Executive Director, Kevin Smith, issued the following statement to the press following the votes:

"We are pleased that common sense prevailed in the House today by not concurring with the Governor and Senate’s amendment.  We are hopeful that the Legislature, having seen there is clearly a divide amongst themselves on this issue, will finally put this to bed by not-concurring in the committee of conference and will instead get on with the issue the people care most about in this state: the economy."

Smith added, "The Governor stated last week that will veto the gay marriage legislation if it did not contain the language he asked for.  Today, the Governor’s amendment was defeated, so we are hopeful he will stay true to his word this time, by vetoing any other language that comes to his desk."

So now the bill goes back to committee. New Hampshire! Keep contacting your reps!

<>Pomegranate Apple



  1. Urabus said,

    May 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    I doubt Lynch will keep his word. He has already proven he will bend over ‘forward’ for the homosexual agenda.

  2. Euripides said,

    May 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    I agree with Urabus. Lynch won’t keep his word. He’ll cave in to political expediency and gutless reaction.

  3. Chairm said,

    May 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    It can still be derailed in committee. When does the legislative session end?

  4. Agnes said,

    May 20, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Yes. He rejected it.

  5. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    I’m pretty sure it didn’t even reach his desk yet. It has to be approved by both the senate and the house. So it goes back to committee.

  6. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    correct me if i’m wrong

  7. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    this is a pretty good article:

  8. raytmimer said,

    May 21, 2009 at 9:52 am

    This is going to be an interesting point of contention. Hasn’t the whole point been all along that there is no threat to religion in these bills? How can they explain rejecting protections for religion and still keep a straight face when our concerns are raised over religious freedoms?

  9. Chairm said,

    May 21, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Raytimner, it is because the SSM campaign refuses to grant that those who disagree have any moral standing. It is the first axiom of SSM arugmentation that to disagree is itself an act of bigotry. Indeed, the line is usually far more pointed than even that — they declare axiomatically that it is a religious bigotry. Hence the rejection of freedom of conscience and the obvious assertion of supremacy for identity politics of the gaycentric variety.

  10. raytmimer said,

    May 21, 2009 at 11:19 am

    I believe you are correct on that point. I was reading the Riddle Scale, it was pretty telling. If the protections are not provided for, you can bet they won’t be given later.

  11. James R. said,

    May 21, 2009 at 11:25 am

    It’s about forcing a secular or even anti-religious view of the minority on the rest. It’s not about marriage at all. The rejection of these provisions proves it.

  12. Emissary said,

    May 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    There’s a definite disconnect somewhere. I’ve been told time and time again that “this is only about civil marriage; it has nothing to do with religious marriage.” And, “of course we have no intention of removing your 1st Amendment freedom of religion. You can believe same-sex marriage is wrong all you want. We would NEVER force you to go against your beliefs.” Are these people in NH not mainstream, or are they just revealing an agenda others have striven to hide?

  13. Urabus said,

    May 22, 2009 at 6:06 am

    Ofcourse there is an agenda to all of this. Don’t be fooled by the sleeping wolf. Just look at “Hate bill” H.R. 1913 as it has advanced. The TVC said it was all about protecting 30 bizzarre sexual attractions and all Democrates denied it and dissmissed all objections as rediculous. Now that the bill is safely in the Senates hands (SB 909 I believe) what was once catigoricaly denied is now boldly being preached as fact. See the news at TVC:

    One thing you can count on is that homosexuals will lie and cheat to get what they want no matter the affect for the rest of the 98% of people in this country. They are involved in demonic sexual behavior and are willing advocates of “the father of the lie”, Satan himself.

  14. KingM said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:19 am

    They are involved in demonic sexual behavior and are willing advocates of “the father of the lie”, Satan himself.

    Demonic sexual behavior? You can’t base public policy on superstition, I’m afraid. (Well, you do, but you shouldn’t.)

  15. Gerry said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Yup, the big lie has been exposed – the advocates of same-sex pseudo-marriage want religious people to shut up and submit meekly to their social engineering.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: