New Hampshire gay marriage panel sharply divided

[Thom Little]

A study commission concluded Thursday in tumultuous fashion, with the minority accusing the majority of giving no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire.

That happened because most commission members were lawmakers and activists opposed to gay marriage, according to a minority report by four of the 15 commission members and the one alternate member.

"We in the minority believe that the majority report evidences nearly a complete failure to address the commission's mandate," said the minority report, which supported gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

The majority report, first reported by The Associated Press last week, recommended against gay marriage or civil unions and recommended amending the New Hampshire Constitution to limit marriage to unions between one man and one woman.

.......

The majority said gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, that homosexuality is a choice because no "gay gene" exists, and that more study is needed before New Hampshire allows adoption for same sex couples. Gays and lesbians can adopt in New Hampshire, but only as single parents.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_XGR_GAY_MARRIAGE_NHOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-01-18-43-45

[BattyDem]

1. I'm curious ...

When did the people in the majority "choose" to be heterosexual? :eyes:

[mike_c]

2. no, see-- it doesn't work that way....

We're all heteros by default-- god made us that way-- so us straights NEVER MADE A CHOICE. That's why we don't have to respond to the logic of your question. Only gays choose their sexuality. The rest of us simply go along with god's choice.

I'm omitting the sarcasm smilie because this response isn't actually sarcastic-- it's the actual essence of the fundy argument against the logical bind you proposed. It's a beautiful piece of work, too, because it isolates gays and heteros from one another's experience and allows heteros to persecute gays without seeming illogical.

[pschoeb]

3. Since there is no Catholic gene or Baptist gene, religious discrimination

must not be a civil rights issue ;). Do these people actually have brains? I think they may be lacking the genes for brain development. Does this mean we could legally ban uneducated people, or people who dislike the color blue, or people who aren't Sox fans from getting married, I beleive that these are all non-gene based, but I'm guessing most of us would think this to be unethical discrimination.