New Hampshire state Rep. David Bates (R) is continuing his quest to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage lawwith a new amendment that would simply reinstate the civil unions law from 2007. This is different from his previous proposal — now withdrawn — that would have instituted civil unions that anybody could have refused to recognize. Also, the new amendment would allow the 1,900 already-married same-sex couples to stay married.

Here’s how Bates’ new amendment would play out:

• The legislature would vote to repeal marriage equality and implement the civil unions law as it was passed in 2007, a change that would not take effect until March 31, 2013. This would require a super majority, because Gov. John Lynch (D) has promised to veto any bill that takes rights away from same-sex couples.
• In the meantime, voters would have the opportunity to respond to a non-binding question as to whether they agree with the decision. The vote would have no legal impact, but would indicate to lawmakers essentially whether voters like the repeal or not.
• If voters approve the repeal, it proceeds as planned next March. If they reject it — and polls show a strong majority opposes Bates’ bill — then the legislature would have to act again before March to overturn its own repeal, but would be under no obligation to do so.

Besides being convoluted and a direct attack on same-sex couples’ rights, Bates’ plan has a number of other complications. Consider the bill will now offer civil unions that would actually be recognized, Republicans will have to go on record affirming same-sex couples’ rights whether they vote yes or no on the bill, an ultimatum they might not be pleased with. Further, any repeal will surely be challenged in the courts under the same precedent that the Ninth Circuit just ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional — that once a right is granted, it cannot be taken away.

Republican lawmakers have until March 29 to bring the bill to a vote in the House without requiring a suspension of the rules to introduce it.

New Hampshire Rep. David Bates (R) — the sponsor of legislation to repeal the state’s marriage equality law — says he’ll propose “a floor amendment to try to win over opponents — one that may remove its “religious liberty” clause if that’s what it takes to pass it,” the Union Leader reports. Currently, HB 437, defines marriage as “the legally recognized union of one man and one woman,” allows for “civil unions” that provide all the “rights, obligations and responsibilities” in the state’s marriage law, and preserves same-sex marriages that occurred since the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2010. The measure also includes a “religious liberty” clause that shields any “individual, corporation, entity, association, educational institution or society” for refusing to solemnize or treat as valid any civil union if that violates “their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.”

Bates claims that opponents of the bill are falsely claiming that the language would override the state’s existing nondiscrimination protections, but says “I would rather see the bill pass with nothing in there regarding religious liberties rather than insist on keeping this in there and having the bill fail as a result of it.”

“Civil rights have to do with intrinsic qualities that a person just can’t change,” such as race or gender, he added. Homosexuality doesn’t meet that criterion, he said, adding that not long ago it was referred to as “sexual preference.” “There’s no other example of any basis that we afford a civil right based upon a behavior or a preferential choice,” he said.

Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have pledged to spend $250,000 “running independent TV ads as well as donating directly to legislators’ campaigns this year” to advances Bates’ measure. Meanwhile, the state reports that 1,887 same-sex couples have married since the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2010.

Bates would not say when his bill would come up for consideration.

The National Organization for Marriage does not stand on any set of principles, but is guided solely by what it thinks will help defeat marriage equality for same-sex couples. In Washington, for example, NOM’s Brian Brown came out swinging against Starbucks for supporting the same-sex marriage bill:

BROWN: Americans should be able to drink a peaceful cup of coffee without worrying that a portion of the company’s profits is going to be used to push gay marriage without a vote from the people. This is a gratuitous leap into a hot button culture war issue; respect for diversity touted by Starbucks ought to include respecting the diverse views of all its customers and employees.

For Brown, “diversity” counts when it’s limited to only his views on marriage. Besides that, it’s a farce for NOM to act like it wants businesses to stay out of LGBT issues when it engages with them all the time. As Jeremy Hooper pointed out yesterday, NOM has repeatedly defended Chick-Fil-A for opposing LGBT rights. In fact, NOM now has a “Corporate Fairness Project” that bullies companies into staying affiliated with any employee or contractor who speaks out against marriage — regardless of how offensive their comments might be. Keep in mind too that NOM was on the front lines of the Proposition 8 fight, standing hand-in-hand with ProtectMarriage.com as it threatened businesses that were opposed to the discriminatory amendment.

It’s unclear why NOM targeted a Starbucks cup of coffee rather than a Nike shoe or an Internet search on Google or Microsoft Bing, as it would have to similarly boycott them all for supporting marriage equality in Washington. NOM’s duplicity is by no means surprising, but given the organization continues to commit millions to fighting marriage equality or retaliating against its supporters, its role in fights like Washington’s cannot be discounted.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) spoke out against the GOP’s effort to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law in his State of the State address this afternoon and promised to veto any bill that strips residents of their “civil rights”:

LYNCH: New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of fighting for the rights of all of our people and a tradition of leaving people alone to pursue their own hapiness. As Governor, I intended to uphold that century’s old tradition and I will stand firm against any legislation that will strip any of our citizens of their civil rights.

Watch it:

The New Hampshire legislature is preparing to vote on legislation that would undo marriage equality in the coming days, but some Republican lawmakers are hinting that they may not have the votes to override Lynch’s veto. Republicans — who hold veto-proof majorities in the both the House and Senate — remain split on whether the government should limit residents’ personal freedoms, the Concord Monitor reports, and the party leadership is hoping to avoid a prolonged debate on the issue.

As the New Hampshire legislature prepares to vote on legislation to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law in the coming days, some Republican lawmakers are hinting that they may not have the votes to override Gov. John Lynch’s (D) expected veto of the measure. Republicans — who hold veto-proof majorities in the both the House and Senate — remain split on whether the government should limit residents’ personal freedoms, the Concord Monitor reports, and the party leadership is hoping to avoid a prolonged debate on the issue:

Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who moved here as part of the Free State project, a libertarian movement to relocate to New Hampshire, is also against repeal. Cohn and others believe the bill may pass the House but does not have the two-thirds majority to override a potential veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed the bill three years ago legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I know for a fact, based on people I’ve talked to, that if Gov. Lynch vetoes it, that veto is not override-able,” Cohn said.

Cohn said he plans to introduce an amendment on the House floor that would take government entirely out of marriage, instead giving all couples a civil union and leaving marriage up to churches and other religious institutions. That same approach is supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, a libertarian-leaning group that endorsed 107 House members elected in 2010.

“[T]hey don’t want to get dragged into it,” Gene Chandler, a former Republican House speaker explained. “It’s kind of one of those issues we’re going to have to deal with but wish we didn’t have to, in my opinion,” he added. Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley (R) — who voted against marriage equality — has also pledged that party members can vote their consciences on marriage. “These are deeply personal issues,” Bradley said. “Leadership in the Senate is not going to push people one way or the other.”

Over 1,800 gay and lesbian couples have married in New Hampshire and voters overwhelmingly support the existing same-sex marriage law.