YOUR COMMENTS

Anthony Emanouil, Claremont; Jim Peschke, Croyden, I agree. This Governor lied to get re-elected. Pure and simple. I knew that re-electing him was going to lead to the abandonment of Christian principles, continuing higher taxes and whatever the liberal anti-establishment legislature wanted. Because he has no backbone and no principles. He is simply a former company president in search of a new career. And he is destroying the New Hampshire of traditional VALUES which made it great in the process.
Those of you liberals who think I am comtemptable for having VALUES - I hold you in even higher contempt for you lack thereof. But I thank the Lord every day that there are less of you than there are of us.
- Sandy Picard, Thornton

Why am I now forced to be labeled as a homophobe because I believe in god and the sanctity of marriage between man and woman, and that being homosexual is wrong? Guess my rights to my beliefs are all screwed up. Thousands of years of history rewritten for the few. Great job Gov. Flinch
- Anthony Emanouil, Claremont

Ms. Petriel,
I was in court when the case involving the Jewish college was argued. One of the judges specifically asked the college's attorney whether the college was defending itself on freedom-of-religion grounds. The college's attorney specifically answered "no." I don't know why the college made a decision not to use this argument, but that's the choice they made. The college case doesn't support your argument at all.
- Michael Weisberg, Albany, New York

Well well, Governor Lynch, you've exceeded my expectations. Among the three options previously discussed (sign, veto, or ignore), I thought the most cowardly, indecisive act must be to simply let the bill become law without your signature.

But I've underestimated you. You found a way to be even more spineless, waffling, and pandering. Its nice to know the Supreme Court and the Teachers Unions aren't the only ones for whom you abandon your principles.

If the Republicans run so much as a baked potato against you in 2010, I'm voting 'tater!
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

Definitions: Hundreds of years ago, the word headache was defined as having evil spirits in your head. The cure? Drill a small hole in your head to let the evil spirits out.

Thank GOD we as humans, have the ability to redefine words in our language as we learn, mature and become more wise.

It's unfortunate that some of you are so hung up on the definition of marriage.

Other cultures have various rites that are similar to marriage, yet, they are not called marriage. When you have a couple standing in front of you that have gone through one of those rights, do you consider them "Married" or "joined" by whatever word defines that joining in their culture?

My point: the definition of marriage...the meaning of marriage has been watered down over many many years now. And yet some of you are hanging on to that definition like it's life raft. Unreal....
- Rob Martin, Manchester

Stephen,
Thank you for proving my point. If this is happening in states where gay marriage isn't legal under so called "civil rights violations", what makes you think it won't happen when it is legal?
Are you trying to tell me that the photographer wouldn't have been sued if they refused to photograph a legal marriage ceremony, but can be sued if they refuse to photograph a commitment ceremony, which really is no more than a big party (no legal ramifications)?
What about the Jewish college? They are forced to have same sex couples be treated the same as married though the state does not recognize them as the same.
With the "approval" of the state, the situation will get worse, not better.
- Jeannine Petriel, Weare

As someone that is pro gay marriage and a recovering Catholic, I think that the wording to protect religious groups from being forced by law to do something they don't believe in is just as important as letting those that believe in something. Freedom of choice to marry should not trump the churches freedom to not perform the ceremonies. The church should not be forced into a position at the state level where they could open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit should they choose not to marry two people of the same gender.

This is a very important piece of legislation in terms of ramifications for the entire state and the Governor has shown that he HAS the backbone to approve this even though it is against his own personal beliefs, but just wants to ensure that it is done right.
- Jim Wilson, Manchester

This is clear and simple about legislating the acceptance and approval of one groups behavior. Once so called "gay" marriage is in place the advocates of it will be pushing this agenda in the schools from 1st grade up. This is in order to convert our children to their point of view. The schools in MA are a prime example of this, remember the father arrested at the Lexington school for voicing his opposition on it? That case is still pending. Many schools in NH already push this agenda and if you stand against it or complain you are attacked as a " hater", " Fill in the blank A-phobe" and all the words the left uses in their attempts to silence dissent. And since my tax money and children go to the public schools by law I will stand against this any way I can. ( no I cannot afford private schools for them-) And what about the protection for private businesses not wanting to support " gay" marriages or activities? Where are our rights to stand up for our personal and religious convictions ? Spare me the argument that businesses are in the public and must serve all, since when did the courts or government force any business to deal with a group that was deemed as not PC. I am sure any business could refuse business with the Nazi Party of the US and get away with it. In the end you cannot legislate acceptance. You can make it legal but it will never be right.
P.S..
Spare me the liberal diatribe about diversity, rainbows, etc. etc.. Because it is only certain Diversity that these people accept.
- Vince Milano, Epping NH

Gov. Lynch has simply stated that a church does not have to cave in to the values and demands of a few people

His stand shows some backbone.
- Bill Howard, Exeter

Jeannine Petriel's list of supposed infringements of religious freedom is completely irrelevant to the marriage issue. NONE of the states she cites HAS same-sex marriage. Those issues all arose under ordinary civil rights laws. Marriage was not the issue and made no difference.
- Stephen Clark, Albany, NY

There's nothing wrong with a referendum vote. These postings from "out of staters" that rail against it serve only to further illustrate the the fact that our state legislature has been hijacked by a small but well organized special interest group. For gays to compare themselves to the blacks or to women's sufferage is ludicrous. Obviously no one has denied gay people the right to vote or a good education or good jobs. No one is making them ride in the back of the bus and I haven't seen any businesses in this state post "straight only" signs. I also couldn't find a reference in any U.S. history books that these people were ever forced into slavery. I'm an atheist who gave up "organized superstition" long ago and I do not agree that this is a civil rights issue but a moral one.The root of the problem seems to be people who cannot accept what they are ie male, female, republican, democrat, faithful, unfaithful . Since Gov.Lynch is one of them he has lost credibility with the voters that put him there. Bad move.
- Dave Donth, Croydon

Thomas,
You are 100% wrong. In NJ a lesbian couple wanted to use a camp owned by the Methodist Church for their committment ceremony. The church said no and the couple sued. The church lost it's tax exempt status.
In NM a photographer said no when asked to photograph a committment ceremony. The couple found a different photographer, but decided to sue the first photographer anyway. It is currently in the courts. Even if the photographer wins it will cost them a bundle to defend thier right to choose who they provide services for.
EHarmony was forced to provide match up for same sex couples, though there are many websites that do that.
An orthodox Jewish college in NY was ordered by the NY Supreme court to allow same sex couples to live together in the married dorms on campus.
Even with what the governor proposes, businesses and churches will not have protection.
This isn't about rights, it is about forcing everybody to follow the gay agenda in lockstep or suffer in the courts. While they gain a "right" (which is really a privledge), the rest of us lose our real rights of free speech, free association and freedom of worship.
- Jeannine Petriel, Weare

Why is the state involved in the marriage process at all? If the state wants to grant legal rights such as property rights or rights of survivorship, etc., then it should be a generic contract that any group of people should be able to enter into. In short, from the state's standpoint, civil unions for all. It is simply a contract. It makes no difference if it is between one or more men and one or more women, two or more men, two or more women, brothers and sisters, cousins, fathers and sons, etc. It's a contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. It is a contract instituted by God between a man and a woman. That will never change and it should be reserved for the church.
- Wayne Stanley, Manchester

This comment in the article made me almost fall out of my chair!

"Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research, said the change still would not give legal protection to businesspeople frequently hired for weddings, such as photographers and caterers, who refused to participate because they have religious convictions against gay marriage."

What? Is this guy serious? Um, hello...it is called say "Thanks, but no thanks!" There are no laws that say all caterers or wedding photographers must never turn down any couple that requests their services. Not to mention in this economy, I would bet most photographers and caterers would say "Yes!"

What is next? Saying the rights of grass at a park is being infringed upon, because it didn't ask for a gay couple's wedding to be performed on it? This really shows the transparency of that group's homophobia.
- Thomas McIntosh, Cincinnati, OH

VETO!
The word Marriage is and was derived from the orignal definition as written in the Bible.The governmment took this word by it's definition and placed it onto their documents. Therefore the State has only the power to remove the word Marriage from all it's documents and does not have the power to redefine the word Marriage.
They can not redefine the word .
Grace be with you all...
- Kelly Lawrence, Manchester

So what's going to happen the first time a church which will not perform same sex marriages seeks to rent a public park for, say, a picnic, and the ACLU does to them what they have done to the Boy Scouts all over the country: gets them disqualified from using public space because of their "discriminatory" policy? Or seeks to have their tax exempt status revoked because they "discriminate?" I, for one, can't wait until Pedophile-Americans start asserting their basic rights, too.
- Robert Holladay, Tallahassee, FL.

Mo Baxter,
Read the article. The ammendment DOES give the church the right to not perform weddings if they so choose. What the bill will do will be to give everyone the same rights to marriage and equality under the law, which is really the only fiar thing to do. Separation of church and state is important as well, hence the ammendment.
- Mark Stevens, Concord

What ever happened to legislative process?
The current HB436, proposing the entirely new concept of different kinds of marriages, was amended on the Senate floor (no public hearing.)
The current companion policy, HB 310,
was amended on the Senate floor and the House floor (no public hearing.)
The amendment offered (exempting certain religious officials) was not even close to being germane to the bill to which it was amended (reimbursing judges for mileage!)
Now the governor, instead of vetoing it and giving his reasons, with a hope that the legislature will re-work it, does everything backwards. No doubt whatever the legislature does will be done without a public hearing again.
Is it any wonder the general public gets disillusioned with politics?
- Margaret Drye, Plainfield

For those of you morons that keep bringing up the "let the people vote" excuse. Get over it. In no time in this country's history has the majority EVER voted on minority rights. Quit bringing this up. It really makes you look desperate
- Jon Bauer, Tampa FL

The claim that same sex marriage would not affect the states retirement fund by the governor and liberal democrats is false. This is a coordinated effort with GLAD which in Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit challenging the federal DOMA in March 2009. GLAD hopes to have as many states as possible to have same sex marriage on its books to argue that that same sex marriage is now a fundamental right where six states now recognize same sex marriage. Since the term "marriage" is used in federal law, GLAD can reference NH, ME, VT, CT, and IA. See GLAD's website regarding this at http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit/.
- Jack Fredyma, Dover

Dear Mr. McNeely,

Civil rights were never given to the "people" to decide. It always had to come from either the legislature or the courts. Otherwise, we wouldn't have given the right to vote to women. Or the right for blacks to become free or equal. Or to desegregate the schools. And on and on. The minority has to be protected from the majority or otherwise progress will seldom if ever be made.
- R. Hamelin, Schenectady, NY

This man is completely spineless. As though everyone didn't already know this ... waiting a week after the bill passed to hear what he thought. He is the worst kind of politician, the kind that is in the business for one reason only, himself-- he obviously did not run because he had any policy objectives AT ALL. Time to dump this pitiful excuse for a Governor.
- Rob Stith, Dover

Just do us a favor veto it.
Church should have the right to refuse gay marriage vow/or license.
God's Marriage is man + woman.
Freedom to decide not give their Blessing.
Just Veto it.
- mo baxter, plymouth

Jim McNeely, since when do we put issues of Civil Rights up for election in this country? Did we vote on slavery? No.

This country does many things without the blessing of the majority. Thank goodness.
- Fran Taylor, Nashua, NH

I read the language change and I, a gay person of color, say put it in & let the Gov sign it. Yes, he’s a coward but its language that can easily be challenged later down the road. If frustrates me when people think if it’s not 100% right now - I’ll take 95% and worry ‘bout the other 5% later – don’t believe – why wasn’t inter-racial relationships addressed in the 1964 civil rights act? Because life isn't perfect. If I may use a sports analogy here, never take points off the board.
- Rona Hampton, Oakland, CA

Finally, finally, finally, the whole state, democrat, republican, independent, green, purple, yellow party, libertarians, free-staters, you name them all, get to see John Lynch for what he is. Lynch's 2008 popularity rating 70%, 2009 popularity rating 33%. Buckley must be pulling out what is left of his hair. One thing Lynch did, is make sure everyone walks away mad. For a very politically correct man, not a smart political move I think.
- joe kelly, manchester

I think everyone here who has made a comment is forgetting one major point. Back in 1966 the US Surpreme Court outlawed State and churches to stop marriges based on interracial.

This will issue will go to the Courts soon and by the US Constitution will find this issue of "Civil Rights".

What John Lynch is doing may with some people having him walking the fence.

But I feel and agree with him with these changes I have nothing to fear.

I am married to a wonderful woman for 13 years and I feel as a straight man, nothing wrong with same sex marriage.

I think we have to wake up to the 21st Century and stop thinking that the World will end. It won't. I am sick of the "Right-Wing" of politics. I may be a Democrat but I am a NH libertarian Democrat, that I could care less if two people of teh same sex love each other and paying their taxes than who are we to question THEM.

Wake UP.
- Bob Davidson, Nottingham, NH

I have no idea why people think many gay couples would go to the trouble of suing unwilling practicioners anyway.

One loophole which is still there is: the proposed changes cover marriage SOLEMNIZATION. But most activities connected to a wedding are just parties which have no legal or religious significance. The white dress, the cake, the expensive and excessively elaborate party, etc, are not legally required.
- Timothy Horrigan, Durham, NH

Whoa - settle down folks! You want equality? You want what is 'right'? Then you put this on the ballet and see what the PEOPLE of the STATE vote. You don't want that because you know exactly what will happen. Does it really scare you to realize that you are a very small minority in this country? More power to YOU as and INDIVIDUAL, but when it comes to issues like this, the only fair and equitable means to the end is through a vote of the PEOPLE of the STATE.
- Jim McNeely, Exeter,NH

Since when has any church been forced to marry anyone they don't want to? If they don't want to marry gay couples there they wouldn't have to anymore than they would have to marry a jewish couple. This is bologna.
- Kris Lozeau, Keene

Point Blank-> Lynch has ZERO back bone and just doesn't want to take a stand on the issue just as he has dealt with every issue he has been faced with throughout his tenure as governor. I'm tired of my governor not being a leader and sick of his inability to stand up for ANYTHING!
- Ryan Purkiser, Manchester, NH

As a long standing Republican supporter of gay marriage (one of seven), I will vote to override the Governor's veto, but I will not vote for any further changes done not in the interest of equality for all people but done for Lynch's opinion poll numbers and his attempt to be on both sides of an issue at once. If the "fix" bill fails to get Republican support, it will fail. It will not have my support. If he vetoes, we should override, not keep tinkering.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15
- steve vaillancourth, manchester

Para 457:2 Marriages Prohibited, violates the U.S. Constitution in that it discriminates against the members of religions tha practice polygamy, most notably Islam and fundamentalist Mormons and Jews.

Furthermore, it does not specify the nature of father, mother, son, daughter, sister, brother relationships and is therefor without meaning. Nor does is cite the purpose of such a prohibition.

IF the intent of this law is to allow same sex marriages, then why would you prohibit two brothers from marrying each other, or two sisters from marrying each other? Again, the reasoning for the prohibition is lacking and therefor the law should not be passed.

Mr Lynch should do a veto on this bill. It's bad law.
- Michael D. Houst, Barrington, NH

I'm a Christian, but this isn't about religion. This is about equality and love. A marriage license comes from the state, not a church. And a religious institution doesn't have to perform a same-sex marriage. I don't understand what Gov. Lynch's problem is. It's time that everyone in this country have the same rights! Sign this legislation into law.
- Allan Roberts, Manchester

Why are religious leaders even being consulted, I thought church and state were suppose to be separate.

where is the wording marriage is between a man and a woman, other than the Bible, and why would today's laws be shaped by an ancient religious text?

Why are people opposed to this anyways, dont more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, how sacred is that institution really?

Why isnt there a bill from the religious folks to outlaw Divorce, if the covenant of marriage is so important?
- Morgan Smith, hampton

This is ridiculous. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and all other houses of worship have NEVER been forced to marry anyone. This is a red herring, and Governor Lynch knows it. All this veto threat does if give the bigots who oppose marriage equality more time to whip up more hysteria.
- Chuck Anziulewicz, Spring Hill, West Virginia

I would only ask the governor if he would make the same changes to the current marriage law if a religion refused inter-racial marriages. The relationship of homosexuals and the religious community whether regarding marriage or any other issue should be left to the parties without government involvement. Marriage should be no different.
- Suki Norris, Madison