New Hampshire’s civil unions law goes into effect.
By on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
New Hampshire’s civil unions law goes into effect.
Approximately 100 couples united under New Hampshire’s new civil unions law that went into effect yesterday, making it “the fourth state to allow civil unions of same-sex couples.” With the new legal status, these couples will receive access to family members’ medical care, coverage under state-regulated family health plans, and the ability to transfer property to one another without paying taxes.
UPDATE: On Dec. 28, at the behest of a conservative legal group, a federal judge in Oregon “temporarily blocked” a same-sex civil unions law passed last year by the Oregon Legislature that would have gone into effect yesterday
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
good for them?
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 amI hope some conservative will use this thread to explain to me how this will devalue my marriage. I still don’t understand how that works.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 amI agree toasterhead (@2),
They could also explain how anyone else’s actions would have ANY affect on the sanctity of my marriage.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 amCongrat’s!
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am#2 – “I hope some conservative will use this thread to explain to me how this will devalue my marriage. I still don’t understand how that works.” Comment by toasterhead — January 2, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I want to hear this as well. It would be interesting to see how the conservatives can explain how expanding a right will somehow lessen it.
It would be like allowing women to vote devalues the vote of men.
It would be like freeing the slaves makes my caucasion freedom somehow devalued.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 amI’m from NH and it is pandemonium. Dogs are marrying cats, there is rampant sodomy in the streets….Oh the humanity…
Naw, just like in Mass. and Vermont….nothing will change.
-GSD
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 amThe Oregon law would have gone into effect as well, I believe, except that it was challenged by a group of fundies who got a Bush-appointed federal judge to put a hold on the law. These are the same people who claimed, during an earlier ballot fight about gay marriage, that they weren’t opposed to civil unions — because the legislature was controlled by Republicans at the time. Now that the leg is controlled by Democrats, with a Democratic governor, the pretense is over.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 am#6 – “there is rampant sodomy in the streets….Oh the humanity…”
Comment by GSD — January 2, 2008 @ 10:15 am
And I thought the Republican convention wasn’t until the 8th of January. ;-)
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 amThe only thing that I don’t understand is why Dems were so foolish as to push for this same legislation under the label of “marriage”? By intentionally poking their fingers in the eyes of Christians, Dems not only failed to legalize gay “marriage”, and not only lost major elections year after year, but now Dem Presidential candidates openly state that they are against gay “marriage”.
Dem Presidential candidates aren’t fooling anyone, we all know they intend to pass legislation that either creates a federal civil union status, or add homosexual unions to existing marriage statutes – that is beside the point.
Dems just aren’t willing to respect an opponent enough to compromise, so they hoped to push their agenda through courts, until Reps finally filled the Supreme Court with strict constructionists. Now Dems hope to trick the electorate into giving them power, making promises they don’t intend to keep.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am#7 – “The Oregon law would have gone into effect as well, I believe, except that it was challenged by a group of fundies who got a Bush-appointed federal judge to put a hold on the law.” Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Once everyone else in America wakes up to the truth that civil unions impacts marriage in no way, shape, or form, the rest of the states will eventually allow same-sex civil unions.
Since Republicans are supposed to be pro-states-rights, they’ll have to support this initiative, or prove to everyone that they are liars first, and flip-floppers second.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 amAnd I thought the Republican convention wasn’t until the 8th of January. ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 2, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Well played, Soldier… well played!
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 amSince Republicans are supposed to be pro-states-rights, they’ll have to support this initiative, or prove to everyone that they are liars first, and flip-floppers second.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 2, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Isn’t it interesting how the “states rights” party is now consistently opposing state measures such as Sudan divestment, civil unions, and California’s automotive standards? Why is that?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 amA letter in the morning Oregonian explains everything. Apparently, the human race is never more than one generation away from extinction. Anything that encourages homosexuality endangers the entire race by cutting down on the breeding potential!
Wow.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 amIsn’t it interesting how the “states rights†party is now consistently opposing state measures such as Sudan divestment, civil unions, and California’s automotive standards? Why is that?
Comment by toasterhead — January 2, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Because “states rights” was never anything but a code phrase for “white power”?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am#11 – “I am an economic and social conservative on most issues, and I support Civil Union statutes.” Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Then according to most conservatives, you’re not a social conservative.
I’m glad you find yourself joining with most mainstream Americans in supporting civil unions.
Personally, I’m an economic conservative, unlike the current batch of Republicans in the House & Senate. ;-)
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 amA letter in the morning Oregonian explains everything. Apparently, the human race is never more than one generation away from extinction. Anything that encourages homosexuality endangers the entire race by cutting down on the breeding potential!
Wow.
Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Do you have a link to that letter, gum?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 amStates rights tend to bow to national economic / security concerns, but moral questions tend to get a pass, which is why states have different abortion and gay marriage / civil union laws, but won’t get a pass on vehicle standards, while the US automakers are losing market share and facing bankruptcy.
I’ve seen on more than one business program that US automakers were expected to be bought out or shut down in 5 – 10 years, prior to the unions taking 71 cents on the dollar for future benefit liabilities. Now that unions finally relinquished those demands, the US is merely on an equal competitive footing with foreign automakers, and could still stumble in the face of these new CAFE standards. The last thing they need is CA and other states continually raising the bar, while the big 3 try to execute product development plans.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 amIf you want an example of bad government policies towards sustaining population, just check out Japan. 100 year mortage loans have ballooned home prices beyond what couples can afford and still have many children.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Japan when a significant portion of their population dies of old age within the next decade. If they don’t change government policy, Japan’s population will plummet, and they tend not to allow much immigration.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 amSo no fire and brimstone this time either?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 amI want to hear this as well. It would be interesting to see how the conservatives can explain how expanding a right will somehow lessen it.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 2, 2008 @ 10:10 am
So far the only explanation I’ve heard that makes any sense at all comes from Stephen Colbert, who says he only got married so that he could make fun of gays.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 amA letter in the morning Oregonian explains everything. Apparently, the human race is never more than one generation away from extinction. Anything that encourages homosexuality endangers the entire race by cutting down on the breeding potential!
Wow.
Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 10:25 am
I haven’t found that letter in the Oregonian on their website, but I’ll comment on the summary you provided.
Did I miss something? Is it true that the only reason large number of people are married to and having children with people of the opposite sex is because they haven’t been “encouraged” to be homosexuals?
And that homosexuals will stop being gay, get married to people of the opposite sex, and breed obediently if only they are “encouraged” to?
I cannot believe that there are still people out there who are so stupid they really think this.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 amThe Oregonian website is crap, pure and simple. Sometimes I can find letters to the editor there, other times they only post one or two. And sometimes, material from the morning edition doesn’t show up online for hours.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 amOn Dec. 28, at the behest of a conservative legal group, a conservative federal judge in Oregon “temporarily blocked†a same-sex civil unions law passed last year by the Oregon Legislature that would have gone into effect yesterday.
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Oregon
Nominated by George W. Bush on May 8, 2003, to a seat vacated by Robert E. Jones; Confirmed by the Senate on September 25, 2003, and received commission on September 26, 2003.
Ricks College, A.B., 1979
Utah State University, B.S., 1981
Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, J.D., 1984
And if I remember correctly, he is a Mormon.
Another one of Bush’s activist judges making law based on his religious beliefs.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pmThere is hope in America!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pmWait a minute, they used a judge to thwart the will of a legislative body? Ummm isn’t that exactly what they deplore…judicial activism?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm#24 – “Ummm isn’t that exactly what they deplore…judicial activism?” Comment by Severus — January 2, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
It’s another of those pesky double-standards. SOME judicial activism is acceptable, while other judicial activism is deplorable.
It all depends on who’s agenda is being served. If the right-whiners want something, it’s OK. If the right-whiners don’t want something, it’s bad!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pmI live in a small town with a proportionately large (and generally accepted) gay community. I am the third wife of my second husband; my daughter is an unmarried mother.
Do you think “non-traditional families” are caused by drinking the same water (like being a hypocritical bigot is caused by drinking the same kool-aid)?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm#23 – “States Rights”, along with “judicial activism”, are only bad when used to EXPAND the rights of people. The very definition of “conservatism” – keeping others down, to maintain the dominance of white (straight) males.
That’s why the US Constitution must be done away with, it’s provisions give way too many rights to the people, and limits the power of government – way too liberal.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pmWell the Sun has come up after some snow and things in NH remain pleasant and beautiful. People still are going to work, heterosexual marriage still seem to have about a fifty/fifty chance of making it and no vengeful Gods have smited us yet. Weird thing is this same pattern held true for our neighbors to the South and West when they made the same intelligent forward step in the world of civilized civil rights. Now if those other 46 states can just get with the program
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm