More Republican shenanigans.. via supermajority

[zsdersw]

In New Hampshire:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...ngs_thurs_on_nh_bills_to_repeal_gay_marriage/

CONCORD, N.H.—Hearings will be held Thursday on two bills that would repeal New Hampshire's gay marriage law.

House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt has said he will ask the Judiciary Committee to keep the bills until next year, but hearings must be held this year under House rules. The committee is expecting a large crowd and has reserved the House chamber for the hearings.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has said he will veto a repeal bill if it reaches his desk. Republicans hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate which would be enough to override a veto if the GOP caucus was united in repealing gay marriage.

The law has been in effect a little over a year

Why are they introducing bills to repeal something that a majority of NH residents support:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-gay-marriage-newhampshire-idUSTRE7185XF20110209

And yet some people still wonder why a significant majority of homosexuals vote Democratic... it's because when Republicans get too much power they start pulling sh** like this.

 

[ElFenix]

i guess new hampshire doesn't have a budget gap, otherwise they'd be working on that rather than harassing people

 

[jhbball]

In New Hampshire:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...ngs_thurs_on_nh_bills_to_repeal_gay_marriage/



Why are they introducing bills to repeal something that a majority of NH residents support:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-gay-marriage-newhampshire-idUSTRE7185XF20110209

To create jobs, obviously!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Gay marriage is a job killer.

 

[Linflas]

Because they feel that is what their constituents want? Just because they have a super majority does not mean that they will get anywhere with attempting to repeal it if enough of their constituents let them know otherwise. Hearings do not equal an automatic repeal and even passage does not mean a veto would be overridden.

 

[zsdersw]

Because they feel that is what their constituents want? Just because they have a super majority does not mean that they will get anywhere with attempting to repeal it if enough of their constituents let them know otherwise. Hearings do not equal an automatic repeal and even passage does not mean a veto would be overridden.

None of which is the point. The point is they shouldn't be bothering with this sh** in the first place when the majority doesn't want what's in the bills.

The minority of reps for the minority of constituents that want this repeal can and should introduce all the bills they want, but that doesn't mean the House Republican leader has to do anything like this with them.

 

[Genx87]

None of which is the point. The point is they shouldn't be bothering with this sh** in the first place when the majority doesn't want what's in the bills.

The minority of reps for the minority of constituents that want this repeal can and should introduce all the bills they want, but that doesn't mean the House Republican leader has to do anything like this with them.

If the majority truely are where you claim they are then they surely will tell their reps to let this die right? If not, kick them out in 2012?

I dont really understand why you seem surprised at this from a party who has a national platform of opposing gay marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

"GOD, why are they cramming this bill down the people's throats when polling clearly shows the people don't want it?"

I have a sneaking suspicion a significant number of the same idiots who spent all last year shrieking that are quite pleased with this. Hopefully this will serve as yet another lesson as to why you don't elect regressive pigfuckers.

 

[zsdersw]

If the majority truely are where you claim they are then they surely will tell their reps to let this die right? If not, kick them out in 2012?

What they tell their reps and what the reps do are not necessarily the same. And yes, of course, they can be kicked out in 2012, but again.. that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be doing this in the first place.

It's not just me making the claim of what NH residents support, either.. if you'd bother to check the link.

I dont really understand why you seem surprised at this from a party who has a national platform of opposing gay marriage.

I'm not surprised at all.. but I am disappointed; that the party I'd rather vote for is continuing to do crap like this and maintains opposition to gay marriage in their national platform.

 

[fskimospy]

What they tell their reps and what the reps do are not necessarily the same. And yes, of course, they can be kicked out in 2012, but again.. that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be doing this in the first place.



I'm not surprised at all.. but I am disappointed; that the party I'd rather vote for is continuing to do crap like this and maintains opposition to gay marriage in their national platform.

We don't elect politicians to take polls before every action they take, they use their own judgment. I'm pretty sure that most of those people voting for this are on the record as being horrible people in this regard, so any shock at them acting like horrible people when they were elected is a bit naive.

 

[Linflas]

None of which is the point. The point is they shouldn't be bothering with this sh** in the first place when the majority doesn't want what's in the bills.

The minority of reps for the minority of constituents that want this repeal can and should introduce all the bills they want, but that doesn't mean the House Republican leader has to do anything like this with them.

Representative democracy can be ugly sometimes, that is how life works. Just like this issue seems to be one you find most important given your previous postings why does it surprise you that there are people on the other side just as passionate in their views?

 

[Thump553]

i guess new hampshire doesn't have a budget gap, otherwise they'd be working on that rather than harassing people

Not necessarily true. My state has a substantial deficit, but last week the legislators' attention was focused on the scandal of the outgoing governor doling out low number license plates to her friends and cronies.

Fortunately we have a surprisingly sane new governor. One of his core principles is to put the state on GAP (general accounting principles) and to comply with them from here out. Imagine, a state budget without smoke and mirrors.

 

[her209]

Another bill being proposed by New Hampshire to strip students of the voting rights in federal elections in NH.

http://www.tnhonline.com/proposed-bill-would-bar-students-from-voting-in-college-towns-1.1922731

 

[zsdersw]

Representative democracy can be ugly sometimes, that is how life works.

Indeed, but we must not stop working toward making it better.. and part of that work includes calling a spade a spade; calling bad decisions (giving these two bills a hearing) what they are: bad decisions.

Just like this issue seems to be one you find most important given your previous postings why does it surprise you that there are people on the other side just as passionate in their views?

Where have I expressed surprise at that? I'm not surprised by anything that opponents of GLBT rights say or do.

 

[werepossum]

If the majority truely are where you claim they are then they surely will tell their reps to let this die right? If not, kick them out in 2012?

I dont really understand why you seem surprised at this from a party who has a national platform of opposing gay marriage.

Probably not so much surprised as disgusted. Here is a very libertarian state where even many staunch Republicans are pro-gay marriage (or more properly not anti-gay marriage), in a time of great economic strain, in a national mood of small government, when people are pulling together around their families and family values, and here the Republicans go with gay marriage bans - a topic that does not fit New Hampshire voters, does nothing to balance the budget or encourage job creation, is the very antithesis of small government, and actively opposes family values and stability for gay parents while doing nothing to enhance family values and stability for non-gay parents. This is asinine on every possible front - except for appeasing those who hate gays.

 

[bamacre]

Probably not so much surprised as disgusted. Here is a very libertarian state where even many staunch Republicans are pro-gay marriage (or more properly not anti-gay marriage), in a time of great economic strain, in a national mood of small government, when people are pulling together around their families and family values, and here the Republicans go with gay marriage bans - a topic that does not fit New Hampshire voters, does nothing to balance the budget or encourage job creation, is the very antithesis of small government, and actively opposes family values and stability for gay parents while doing nothing to enhance family values and stability for non-gay parents. This is asinine on every possible front - except for appeasing those who hate gays.

:thumbsup:

 

[zsdersw]

Probably not so much surprised as disgusted. Here is a very libertarian state where even many staunch Republicans are pro-gay marriage (or more properly not anti-gay marriage), in a time of great economic strain, in a national mood of small government, when people are pulling together around their families and family values, and here the Republicans go with gay marriage bans - a topic that does not fit New Hampshire voters, does nothing to balance the budget or encourage job creation, is the very antithesis of small government, and actively opposes family values and stability for gay parents while doing nothing to enhance family values and stability for non-gay parents. This is asinine on every possible front - except for appeasing those who hate gays.

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Genx87]

Probably not so much surprised as disgusted. Here is a very libertarian state where even many staunch Republicans are pro-gay marriage (or more properly not anti-gay marriage), in a time of great economic strain, in a national mood of small government, when people are pulling together around their families and family values, and here the Republicans go with gay marriage bans - a topic that does not fit New Hampshire voters, does nothing to balance the budget or encourage job creation, is the very antithesis of small government, and actively opposes family values and stability for gay parents while doing nothing to enhance family values and stability for non-gay parents. This is asinine on every possible front - except for appeasing those who hate gays.

You wont get an argument from me on the subject. I am just not sure why any of this should surprise or disappoint people. It isnt like this is change in the platform or something.

 

[zsdersw]

You wont get an argument from me on the subject. I am just not sure why any of this should surprise or disappoint people. It isnt like this is change in the platform or something.

It's a disappointment (and disgusting) because it means that the Republican party isn't going to focus on only fiscal matters like they said they would.

 

[manimal]

this is surprising why?


count me in as disgusted....but not surprised....

 

[JSt0rm]

it is gods will. allahalaallaaah allah er holy jeebus and ghosts and shit.

 

[JS80]

Why is government in the marriage business?

 

[bamacre]

Why is government in the marriage business?

Government is in the everything business.

 

[werepossum]

It's a disappointment (and disgusting) because it means that the Republican party isn't going to focus on only fiscal matters like they said they would.

I don't mind Republicans focusing on social issues; I just mind them infringing on freedom. No one has a right to control others' lives except where those others' behavior directly affect them. To my mind, keeping the government from infringing on your family's privacy and freedom and G-d given rights, except where minors or the public are clearly and immediately endangered, is a valid function of lawmakers. This is the very antithesis of that, attempting to empower government to infringe on your family's privacy and freedom and G-d given rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nowhere in that, nor in the Constitution, is it qualified by "except where we find that pursuit to be icky and not to our liking." It's taken us over two hundred years to realize these simple truths for everyone, and still some people insist on their right to selectively deny them to others.

Government is in the everything business.

Quoted for truth.

 

[JS80]

touche.