Rep. David Bates stands to testify in support of the repeal action, at the NH state house, Feb. 2011.
Repeal opponents wore red. Bates expressed he felt it was appropriate that the majority
should be allowed to vote away the rights of minorities.
New Hampshire Republican state House Rep. David Bates is back at it again.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Bates is circling back, once again to revoke the freedom to marry from New Hampshire's LGBT citizens. He's got a new bill he introduced on Tuesday, and it's a hot mess of spin, lies and animus.
The bill would repeal marriage equality effective March 31, 2013, and replace it with civil unions. But get this:
Bates' proposal is intended to return to that law by giving same-sex couples the contractual protections of marriage and requiring them to go through divorce proceedings like heterosexual couples.
Am I reading this right? Forced divorced? Really? That seems like a good idea?
Rep. Bates wants to forcibly divorce approximately 1,900 New Hampshire families? This is the family values party we're talking about?
[Update: I may have misinterpreted this, as Scottie Thomaston points out here. I guess the point is the new civilly unioned couples would still have to go through divorce to become "un-civilly-unioned." It seems so complicated to keep a different set of rules and institutions for different people. Remind me, what is the problem with treating everyone the same?]
But there's more lunacy, he wants to give voters "a chance to weigh in" via nonbinding ballot resolution. Here's how it works:
He said if voters decide in November they want to keep civil unions for homosexuals, gay marriage would be repealed. He said if voters object to repealing gay marriage, lawmakers would have time to stop the repeal from taking effect.
Get it?
It's nonbinding. "Stopping the repeal" would mean putting it up for a legislative vote again. Which of course, was always an option, nonbinding resolution or not. So, no matter how the popular vote goes, Bates wins. Isn't that convenient way to run a democracy? The Taliban beams with pride at their American counterpart.
In these economic times, why would Rep. Bates want saddle the state with the cost of a nonbinding resolution that does nothing? Saving the state of New Hampshire the cost of a pointless election seems a good reason to vote no on his bill just by itself.
We already know how the people of New Hampshire feel. Polls have been coming back for years. The information is all right there for those of us living in the reality-based world.
A poll released by WMUR and University of New Hampshire showed 27 in favor of repeal versus 50 percent strongly opposed. This is completely consistent with earlier polls. One taken in February 2011 (pdf) led Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center to conclude:
“Strong opponents of repealing same-sex marriage outnumber strong proponents by a factor of 2 to 1. Politically, this is represents powerful resistance to changing the current law.”
Strong supporters of marriage equality are double strong opponents (2/11,
pdf: WMUR/UNH)
The intensity is heavily weighed in favor of maintaining the status quo:
They had their chance to make their case with a populous uprising, and they really did try. In 2010 opponents of marriage equality launched a petition drive to repeal the law through a town hall mechanism provided for in the New Hampshire constitution. The effort was called "Let NH Vote."
It was a failure, not a little failure, a big failure.
Freedom to Marry forwards the following data on that effort:
FACT CHECK: 69% of NH Towns Opposed to Marriage Discrimination
Inside The Numbers
- 234 towns and cities in NH
- 221 towns that can have a petitioned article
- 73 towns didn’t even address the anti-equality petition put forward by “Let NH Vote” because the petition couldn’t gather a mere 25 signatures
- 80 towns actively rejected the petition
- 59 towns supported the petition
- The results of 9 other towns are unknown
Among eligible towns, 69% rejected the petition drive. Among all incorporated places, that figure is 71%.
Even among all towns which actively considered the petition, where enough signatures were gathered to force a vote, the measure was defeated in 58% of those communities.
If you'd like to see it in pictures, here is Granite State Progress' map of how the vote turned out, green areas voted for repeal, blue areas rejected repeal, and white areas did not bother to do either.
It's pretty clear, isn't it, why Rep. Bates wants the people to vote
—but only in nonbinding resolution—that he and his conservative Christian masters can ignore. What a crock. The populous vote is nothing more than set dressing to attempt to spin away responsibility from himself and his fellow legislators for their own heinous actions. And only fools couldn't see through that.
Well, I wondered what would become of the conservative's favorite tactic and talking point, "let the people vote!" now that marriage equality support is shoring up and they've totally lost the youth vote. We see it will be amended to "Let the people vote, in nonbinding resolutions!"
This bill isn't doing a thing about jobs, economy or taxes or anything his constituents care about. This is about Bates serving special interest groups, like NH Cornerstone, the National Organization for Marriage, and various nationally funded hate groups like Family Research Center. The majority rules small "d" democratic path is clear to everyone living in the reality-based universe. Like birth control (ha, ha), the topic is finished, the issue is settled. Like birth control, the deranged right just can't accept the answer they got.
And Bates is spinning and sweating mightily to keep his caucus from abandoning him, because it isn't at all clear the libertarian-leaning Republicans are united behind him in his quest to strip citizens' of their rights, and their existing freedom to marry.
Sean Owen, chairman of New Hampshire Repbulicans for Freedom and Equality, released the following statement, and he isn't loving the idea of Bates' nonbinding referendum either:
“Legislators were elected to represent the people, and popular opinion has been very clear on the issue. Representative Bates continuously discounts poll after poll showing voters favor the freedom to marry by a two-to-one margin and then proposes the world’s most expensive public opinion survey, expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill.”
“The addition of a nonbinding referendum is a distraction. Republican lawmakers were elected to focus on the fiscal issues of the state and not to take away freedoms from law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.”
Co-Chair Craig Stowell announces Standing Up For New Hampshire Families' broad
and bipartisan Leadership Council. (
Facebook)
Craig Stowell, Republican co-chairman of
Standing Up for New Hampshire Families said:
“Representative Bates is now trying an ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ approach in his sputtering effort to repeal this popular law. Changing the definition and throwing in another non-binding referendum doesn’t change the facts. Bates had his referendum in 2010 and cities and towns overwhelmingly rejected it.”
“This is nothing more than a desperate, last minute Hail Mary pass. The truth is voters like this law, more than 2000 couples have already married and in New Hampshire, we don’t take rights away. This is nothing more than window dressing and the legislature should reject this out of hand.”
Indeed.
Bates' fealty to out-of-state religious right leaders that don't reflect the feelings or the will of Granite state voters has created yet another Waterloo moment for his party's failed leadership of the state House.
We've said the vote is near, many times, now we have a date. The House vote is expected next week, possibly Wednesday.
You know what to do. Give 'em Hell.
Take action!
Daily Kos has made it easy for New Hampshire residents to contact their representative. Just
provide your zip code to the Daily Kos form here to find your rep's contact information. After you contact them, share the form with your neighbors.
The Granite state Republicans are really sweating this one. And they should be.