New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee votes unanimously to shelve anti-equality bills

March 3, 2011 at 4:13 pm 15 comments

By Adam Bink

This was noted in today’s comments but it has (as you can probably tell) been a busy day, so I only found time now to note: in New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously (15-0) to retain, or shelve, both anti-equality bills until next year. One would have taken away the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, the other would have done away with all marriages and converted them into domestic contracts.

Essentially, a big win all-around. By next year, more couples will have married, more members of the public will see this is a good thing for love, equality and New Hampshire, and if this ugly beast rears its head again in the new year, we will once again drive 600+ people (wonder if we can get to 1,000?) to the hearing to show that New Hampshire stands on the side of love.

For those who pinged their friends in the state about it, gave money to help Arisha, Anthony and Jackki get to New Hampshire to run our 5 Camp Courage trainings with Granite State Progress, submitted written testimony to the committee or attended themselves… or just plain spread the word, pat yourselves on the back!

A good win.

Entry filed under: Marriage equality.

What P8TT Means to Me and to my Family We’re Winning This Case Together

15 Comments Add your own

  • 1. JonT  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    More excellent news :)

    • 2. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm


  • 3. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Take that, National Organization for Misinformation, Misquotes, Mistranslations, and More MONEY (Send MORE MONEY)! Your lies did not carry the day this time! Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win. How long will it take NOM to realize that?

    • 4. Tim in Sonoma  |  March 6, 2011 at 1:05 am

      Love it Richard! Love it! I am looking forward to the day marriage equality is restored to California so I can rub NOM’s nose in it!!

  • 5. Sagesse  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Schadenfreude, day 2 :).

  • 6. JPM  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    It’s not clear to me that there will be another hearing on the bill, at least in the House.

    They may just vote it out of committee and onto the House floor where it will get voted on.

  • 7. Rhie  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm


  • 8. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    I’m dealing with some personal issues, and this just brightened my day. Thanks, CC & P8TT! The forces of fear, ignorance, and prejudice have to go back into hiding in NH for another year. May the tabling be permanent.

    • 9. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:01 pm

      Big Hugs my friend!

      • 10. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm

        Thanks and back atcha, my buddy. :)

    • 11. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm

      *hugs* I sincerely hope whatever problems or challenges you are dealing with will be dealt with swiftly and as happily as possible.

  • 12. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    The link in the first sentence isn’t working.

    • 13. adambink  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      Thanks, fixed.

  • 14. Brenton Clark  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:57 am

    I don’t understand why the bill to completely remove the state government’s involvement in marriage is labeled “anti-equality.” Perhaps there’s more to the language of the bill than is implied by this entry, but I personally think removing government from “defining” marriage in general is a good idea.

    • 15. nightshayde  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:02 am

      I haven’t read the bill, so I could very well be wrong — but I’m guessing it’s one of those things that might not look so bad on the surface, but could turn out to be a negative in the long run.

      There would almost certainly be a segment of the population who have no problem with marriage equality, but would become resentful of same-sex couples — since you KNOW there would be people fanning the “Look – since the gays wanted marriage, now nobody can have it!!! This is why we can’t have nice things!!!” flames.

      I would imagine it would also create problems on the federal level for ALL couples (hence more resentment from straights who are affected) — if the Feds recognize married people as “married,” but don’t recognize domestic partners regardless of orientation as “married.”


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,331 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...