Governor Lynch Neuters Marriage by Signing Gay “Marriage” Bill| Opposes the DOMA

new hampshire makes marriage meaningless

Marriage Made Meaningless Today in New Hampshire

from CPRAction.Org


Today, surrounded in a room full of gay marriage supporters, Governor Lynch officially went back on his word and signed the gay marriage bill into law.  In addition to signing the bill, the Governor also indicated that he is now in favor of REPEALING the Defense of Marriage Act by stating that the federal government needs to now recognize the ‘marriages’ of same-sex couples.

CPR-Action, Executive Director Kevin Smith, made the following comments:

"By signing the gay ‘marriage’ bill into law today, Governor Lynch has officially gone back on his promise to oppose same-sex marriage as both a candidate and as Governor.  The Governor evidently has no problem misleading the voters of this state, while giving into the outside special interests pushing this radical agenda."
Smith added, "In one fell swoop of the pen, the Governor managed to not only sign an unpopular piece of legislation, but did so while breaking his trust with the citizens of this state – a move we are confident that the voters will not soon forget."


Support the DOMA here and here


<>the pomegranate apple




  1. Chino Blanco said,

    June 3, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    CPR Action and Kevin Smith Rendered Even More Meaningless Today

  2. agnes said,

    June 3, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Seeing as how your namesakes energetically engage in gay sex, you should maybe think about changing your name.

  3. KingM said,

    June 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    Marriage made meaningless? LOL.

    I’m in a gay marriage state, still happily married. Gays haven’t taken my kids yet. I’ll be sure to lock my doors at night though, just in case.

  4. Emissary said,

    June 3, 2009 at 6:13 pm


    You grew up in a society that valued marriage. In a generation, I don’t think that will be the case.

    Homosexual marriage strongly demeans any religion that teaches homosexual behavior is wrong. It requires the idea that “there’s no best place to raise a child” to be accepted. And it paves the way for future legislation that provides cohabiting couples all the benefits of marriage because they might be raising children.

    If you grew up in a society that demeaned religion, where children were taught there’s no best place to raise a child, and where cohabiting couples received all the benefits of marriage, do you think you would have gotten married?

    If so, why?

  5. pomegranateappleblog said,

    June 3, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    i await your answer also

    i also await something intelligent from chino and agnes

  6. Chino Blanco said,

    June 3, 2009 at 9:25 pm


    I apparently live in a society where sentences like this get published by National Geographic and nobody busts out laughing:

    “Normally people would just write off this behavior, pitying the bugs as merely confused or overly sexed.”

    Ah, yes, the “normal” reaction is to pity those lower forms who lack homo sapiens’ clarity of purpose and sexual restraint.

    “Pity”? WTF.

    And we wonder why we’re failing so badly at math and science.

  7. Smokezero said,

    June 3, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Emissary, going against what one religion feels isn’t “demeaning.” Its pretty much standard for anyone. Christians don’t believe in the divinity of the Quoran, which is probably a bigger slap in their face than gay marriage. Honest dissent and challenging “tradition” is and always will be a strong way to progress our society as a whole.

    As for the “value of marriage” I can’t speak for the next generation, but from what I’ve seen in my generation, heterosexual couples haven’t exactly helped keep any sort of “value” to it. Many people I know are choosing not to get married because of the divorce rates, and the age to which people are getting married is later because of the mistrust in the fantasy of marriage. Now, as for the later marriages, this is an effect I am strongly for, because I think the image of marriage as a “and they lived happily ever after” fantasy needs to be shattered. Marriage doesn’t solve problems, it usually creates problems. Doesn’t mean its bad, its just not a “useful solution to all of life’s problems.”

    I’m not KingM, and I’m not married either. But, whatever the “status” of marriage becomes, if I found someone with whom I could see spending my life with, be it good, bad, ugly, sick, poor, or filthy stinking rich (which is probably harder), I would still want to seal the deal. Most people want a marriage because of the value we as a society place on it. Even though its gotten a rotten smell over the years because of people not thinking things through, people are still wanting to come back to it. Thick or thin, its an interesting institution for people who enjoy institutions.

    My opinion, my voice. Take it as you will.

  8. Mark said,

    June 4, 2009 at 4:59 am

    It is comforting to know that one reaps what one sowes…

    Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

    Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],

  9. beetlebabee said,

    June 4, 2009 at 5:28 am

    Pomegranate Apple, I apologize, Chino WAS responding, we just couldn’t hear him. I dug him out from between the generic viagra spam and here he is, good as you…. I mean…new.

  10. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 6:21 am

    Mark, while often, people do reap what they sew, quoting Galatians and Romans isn’t exactly poignant to anyone who doesn’t share your world view.

    Asclepius 21-29: “Therefore the mystery of intercourse is performed in secret, in order that the two sexes may not disgrace themselves in front of many who do not experience that reality.”

    Though I can’t exactly tell who you think is reaping what they sew. Little vague there.

  11. Emissary said,

    June 4, 2009 at 7:06 am

    “Most people want a marriage because of the value we as a society place on it.”

    Yes, I agree. But what about when society doesn’t put value on it? Right now most of society thinks marriage as an ideal is good, but it’s broken. But we’re moving towards a nation where marriage is not even seen as good.

    I forgot to mention the most important part of the homosexual marriage aspect. That is, that it will be taught to every child in school because it is not religion-based. How many teachers do you think will put a positive spin on the religious part of history such as Prop. 8? How many will place religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is bad as a good thing? Or will they set a child at odds with his/her parents? Embarrass the children who believe, and teach them that their parents are old-fashioned in their religious beliefs? How many children will then struggle with whether religion is a good or bad thing?

    Personally, as I was growing up, I received the most teasing and bullying from my religious beliefs. I think it’s going to get even worse when the voice of the government (schools) starts setting religion up as old-fashioned or an enemy to progress.

  12. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 7:35 am

    I doubt society would stop putting value in marriage because homosexuals got in on the gig. Now, I’m not arguing for same sex marriage, or against it. I’m actually still very undecided. But, the culture of marriage has changed over time, and across cultures. Yet it is still seen as an important aspect to each society that uses it. Most of the evidence put forth by traditional marriage proponents has been lacking in this regard, more or less “fear based rationale.” The protection people seek from gay marriage is the protection of their religious beliefs (which should be questioned) or a fear that they won’t be able to condemn another person for their lifestyle. The right to discriminate or condemn isn’t a very strong right at all.

    However, I haven’t heard any good arguments for why same sex marriage should be allowed either. A vague appeal to rights doesn’t suit, as there must be a reason why this is a right that must be extended. But, back to my point with you. Sometimes, religion is wrong. Dead wrong. It spreads a wealth of disinformation because it feels a certain way about an issue, and is counterproductive to progress. I wish this weren’t so, but you do need to question anything that rests too much on its own authority. Preachers that teach incorrectly that evolution is a lie from the devil, or that there is a scientific debate about its validity are constantly pointed out where and why they are wrong, and yet they still continue to ignore scientific principle (until such time as they become sick then hold on to your hats ladies and gentlemen, because those viruses and diseases evolve). The belief in God isn’t whats at stake here. The blind acceptance of an ideal because the guy standing at the pulpit said so is what needs to be challenged at every level.

    And just as you have a personal example, so do I. Growing up, I received the most bullying from people of religious belief for my questioning. I was told constantly that my doubting, and yearning to understand truth was the devil leading me away. I was attacked a few times for daring to question something in the bible, or see that book as anything less than “holy, inspired and the inerrant word of God.” I’ve been told that I am going to hell. That I am a tool of Satan. Persecution happens. People will disagree, and life will be unfair. But, you can get over it. You can grow, and try and move on. Just because you are attacked or insulted doesn’t mean you’re right. It just means the opposition has run out of arguments and wants you to go away.

  13. Urabus said,

    June 4, 2009 at 7:38 am

    I don’t see any mention of the fact that the bill has all the religous protections in place that the governor originally wanted. Yes, he is a spineless coward. But at least all religions and any employer that has morals can now say NO to homosexuals demands for marriage or jobs. This will hold us over until the homosexual law is removed by New Hampshire voters.

  14. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 8:04 am

    That’s a great idea Urabus. Deny people employment based on sexual preference. That won’t have any negative consequences ending in a law suit, and possible action from the federal government…

    Oh wait.

    Religion is one thing, employment is another thing entirely.

  15. Emissary said,

    June 4, 2009 at 10:33 am


    I personally see three reasons why people would get married.

    1. Their religious beliefs
    2. They see it as the best place to raise children
    3. Society and government value it and provide benefits

    If you have some more, I would be interested in hearing them.

    Homosexual marriage is not friendly to any of these three ideas.

    1. I have read that “religion is the enemy” on more comments than I can count. And, like I said before, when taught in schools, I believe this will be presented. And, unfortunately, I don’t think it will focus on particular religions. I think it will be blanketed that “religion” is the enemy — not a particular belief within religions.

    2. In order for homosexual marriage to be accepted, people have to believe there’s no “best place” to raise a child. Society must promote that marriage between a man and a woman is just another alternative arrangement for raising children. They claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or unnecessary.

    3a. Homosexual marriage changes what “happily ever after” means in society. It’s no longer a man and a woman coming together to have and raise children. It’s all about the adults. Instead of marriage being the beginning of a triangle (husband, wife, child), it becomes a line. They may still raise children together, but it isn’t a design of the union. In other words, homosexual relations do not have the potential for procreation.

    3b. Government provides benefits for marriage. However, as I mentioned before, I believe these will eventually open up to cohabiting couples as well. Homosexual couples had to push government to give them benefits by claiming that the benefits are really about children. Thus, it was discriminatory to deny them the same benefits when they are also raising children. Cohabiting couples could use the same logic.

    After reading a bunch of other bloggers, I agree that there are three main reasons why man/woman marriage (as an institution) is protected by society.
    1. It is procreative.
    2. It is integrative (brings men and women together).
    3. It provides both a mother and father to each child.

    Usually the arguments of homosexual marriage proponents argue that marriage is discriminatory. But I would flip it over. What makes homosexual marriage so valuable to society that it should be promoted and given benefits?

  16. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Promoting harmonious monogamy. That’s probably the biggest point for a same sex marriage deal. We allow them to be with the one they love (novel idea, yes), and in return they pledge to be faithful to the one they’re married to. It can be translated as a commitment to one person, that you’ve looked around, and found the best match for you is this other person.

    However, with that, I’m neither a proponent of same sex marriage, or against it. I’m more for open debate, and a realistic solution to a problem at hand. There is a compromise, of some form or another that can and should be made between all parties at hand. So far, neither group has shown much effort towards this compromise, and as such, I feel my role has become to poke both sides with a stick and say “Its not about rights, its not about religion. Its about society working together in an honest and open discussion about our diversity.”

    The marriage issue is one that I keep coming back to, not because I feel strongly about one “side” or another, but because I see that no matter what, each “side” has the power, for good or for ill, to change the lives of everyone around them. That demonizing one side or another is not a productive way to do a debate, but that there MUST BE a realistic solution.

    If its not marriage, than we should have some mechanism that promotes fidelity and unity between two people of consenting natures. You may feel “homosexuality is a sin” you may not. That is irrelevant (at least to me). We as human beings must work towards an effort that promotes society on the whole, and celebrates the diversity of our culture. Whatever that solution is, I do not know, but I won’t stop poking either side with sticks until a viable solution comes out of the process.

    In a short word, Thank You for engaging me in such debate.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    June 4, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Smokezero, I like the salt lake city solution. Have you heard of it? What are your thoughts?

  18. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 11:52 am

    I shudder to think of anything good coming from Salt Lake City, but that may be my own bias talking there. Do expound.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    June 4, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Ouch. That stung. I don’t actually know much about it but what I read here:

    While the nation has been debating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, we’ve paid far less attention to the constitutional amendments in 18 states including Texas, Utah, and Ohio that bar any special status whatsoever for same-sex couples. Except the most unlikely of communities – Salt Lake City – has found a creative way to constitutionally provide rights and protections to non-married couples. The Salt Lake City plan is called “mutual commitments,” and it’s a terrific model for the rest of the country.

    …the leadership of Salt Lake City, led by Democratic Mayor Ralph Becker, actually avoided specifically helping same-sex couples. Instead they created a mutual commitments registry for all adult couples ineligible to marry – including roommates, parents with adult dependents, and best friends. That helps same-sex couples without violating the constitution, and helps other worthy relationships as well.

    …Most importantly, the Salt Lake City plan can appeal to traditionalists, as it already has to the conservative Utah state legislature. Mayor Becker’s chief of staff told me their plan passed with broad consensus among Democrats and Republicans, “without anybody feeling like they got burned.”

    If implemented nationally, mutual commitments could mean:

    1) Relief for same-sex and other couples ineligible to marry in places like Waco and Omaha who aren’t guaranteed the right, say, to visit each other in the hospital or gain custody of children they raised together.

    2) The government would continue to give no privileges or special recognition based on a couple’s having gay sex together – or any sex at all. In Salt Lake City, mutual commitment status is handed out to roommates, best friends, lesbian lovers, and others. Each time, the city doesn’t know which – and shouldn’t.

    3) Opponents of same-sex marriage needn’t worry that endorsing the Salt Lake City plan could become a back door or slippery slope to same-sex marriage, since nobody has ever seriously advocated marriage rights for roommates and best friends.

    Ironically, the biggest obstacle to implementing statewide mutual commitment laws – and maybe a federal one – is the screwed-up priorities of the gay community’s leadership. Right now, gays and lesbians are spending millions of dollars on a purely semantic and symbolic fight in the gay-friendly state of California over whether the exact same rights are called a “marriage” or a “domestic partnership.” I have repeatedly proposed that as little as 10 percent of that money go to securing mutual commitments in places like Virginia and the Dakotas, and gays and lesbians have rejected my idea, complaining I was insulting them by comparing a same-sex couple to two roommates or best friends. Well, I’m sorry, but in my eyes, and those of my religious tradition (Orthodox Judaism), that’s preciesely what they are, and they deserve the same recognition, which is not nothing, but not that of marriage either.

    If you listen to the gay complaints about man-woman marriage, they fall into two categories: first, look at all the benefits and protections we don’t get; and second, it makes us feel bad that we can’t get married. I have sympathy for the first complaint, which can mostly be addressed with the Salt Lake City plan. The second set of concerns (”treat us equally” and “we feel like second-class citizens”) is not compelling given that same-sex marriage causes very real harms – to religious freedom, the welfare of children, and the monogamy ideal, for example. If gays and lesbians feel their self-esteem is harmed by not being allowed to marry, I’d be all for support groups and classes on gay history and culture – but I’m not about to change my policy positions.

    At the very least, it’s time we spread the Salt Lake City plan to the 18 states covering one-third of the population where more traditional recognition of same-sex couples is banned by the constitution. Even if the gay community refuses to cooperate while we help them, fair-minded members of both political parties can work together to implement mutual commitments wherever we can.

  20. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Interesting. While I do think the addition of friends and roommates is a bit extreme on the “less important relationship” scale of things, at least it is a start in validating a relationship. Ideally I’d be more for something that points out “this couple is in a union, they’re recognized by all as making a commitment to one another, and the government puts its faith behind you in so far as is rationally vested.”

    But, at least its a start in an argument that isn’t about “rights, hate and old books.”

  21. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Oh, also, if you’re from SLC, its nothing against you, I just have had some REALLY bad experiences from Utah. If anything could make me doubt the goodness of humanity, its Utah.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    June 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    I’m not from Salt Lake, I’ve never lived in Utah except as a student, but I have high esteem and respect for many people who do live there. I am surprised to hear you categorize an entire area negatively. I guess it smacks of dismissive antimormon sentiment. I don’t know you, or anything about you, but I was just surprised after your excellence in trying to be so open minded on other issues.

  23. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    I’m not antimormon by any standards. In fact, On Lawn would be a bigger expert on that than you’d think. However, I had some really bad experiences, and while I don’t begrudge anyone who lives there, the thought of Utah brings back some pretty intense memories.

    “And just as you have a personal example, so do I. Growing up, I received the most bullying from people of religious belief for my questioning. I was told constantly that my doubting, and yearning to understand truth was the devil leading me away. I was attacked a few times for daring to question something in the bible, or see that book as anything less than “holy, inspired and the inerrant word of God.” I’ve been told that I am going to hell. That I am a tool of Satan. Persecution happens. People will disagree, and life will be unfair. But, you can get over it. You can grow, and try and move on. Just because you are attacked or insulted doesn’t mean you’re right. It just means the opposition has run out of arguments and wants you to go away.”

    The above quote, (and reasoning for it) are a lot to do with experiences in Utah.

  24. Smokezero said,

    June 4, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Though to clarify more, because it is rude of me to deny an entire state of rational thought, its more of a “personal bias” than a blatant attempt to silence anything that comes out of Utah, like getting shivers when you think of eating mushrooms on pizza (which by the way, I like). I try to be candid on my expressions, but I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for being from Utah, or think any less. As those who hate mushrooms on pizza shouldn’t think less of us fungi-friends.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    June 4, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Smokezero, I had quite a good experience in Utah, short as it was. I’m sorry yours wasn’t so great. I don’t know if you’ve noticed this tendency but there is a trend of thought that people who live in Utah often exude. It’s like a blushing embarrassment of their state. I only lived there a short time but I noticed it. I don’t understand it. Anyway, whenever I meet someone who has the reaction you had, I always wonder. I admire Utah for a lot of reasons, they have nothing to blush over.

    I actually haven’t looked at this Salt Lake City plan much yet, but it seems to address the main issues. I have not often heard it discussed for better or worse. Thanks for your take.

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: