New Hampshire Gay Marriage Fumble A Lesson In Get-Out-The-Vote
As you've heard, the New Hampshire state House just narrowly rejected a compromise gay marriage bill that Gov. John Lynch (D) was prepared to sign -- only two weeks after they'd previously voted in favor of gay marriage. So what happened?
The answer comes down to a term often used in politics, just not all that much in this context: GOTV.
To start with, little old New Hampshire has absurdly large lower chamber -- with 400 members for a state that has just two Congressional districts. Two weeks ago, the House voted 178-167 for the bill -- meaning that 55 members didn't vote. Today, the vote was 186 yes to 188 no, with 26 people not voting -- 29 less abstainers than last time.
Looking at the two votes, there don't appear to have been people switching from being pro-gay marriage to anti-gay marriage. The difference came from the anti-marriage equality forces doing a better job getting their folks to show up. This is probably not the last we've heard of this issue.
Late Update: Interestingly, there was at least one legislator who switched from yes to no -- a gay Republican who opposed the new concessions to religious institutions not wanting to honor gay marriages.
Josh
Matt
Eric
This article misses the main point. The NH legislature did not vote AGAINST equal marriage. They did not want to cave to the (somewhat bigoted) demands of the Governor to "insist" on religious protection (which already exists outside this bill). The Governor played a game of chicken with the legislature, the Senate complied, and the House did not.
The House (which sponsored the bill) PASSED the legislation. The amendment sullied the bill and in fact would have not only placed bigotry and intolerance written into statute but it could have also served as a dangerous example for others to follow.
Sure, the end result of this could place HB 73 into jeopardy. But I never felt comfortable with losing and battle to win the war when it comes to civil rights. All battles should be won.
May 20, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANY battle (not and battle)
May 20, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amendment language was actually nearly identical to language already in the marriage bill VT passed last month (and in fact was probably just copied from one to the other).
May 20, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a life-long Democrat and I have worked my butt off for many progressive causes and to elect Obama, so I definitely have the right to comment on this. I am SICK of people automatically assuming that in order to be a good Democrat, you have to be for gay marriage. And I know that I speak for many Democrats when I say that. Even many gay strategists know that there are many more important issues that would benefit the gay community. The gay activists that push this particular issue were one of the main reasons that Bush got into office in 2000 and 2004, and I am SICK of this issue. Now we can look forward to state-by-state battles over gay marriage which will hurt Democrats and will make Republicans gleeful. With all the problems in this country, we Democrats have to get weighed down with this? The majority of people in this country believe marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, look at any poll. Why are we allowing the gay activists to drag us down?
May 20, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with all the trolls against marriage equality all of a sudden? No one is pushing this at a national level right now, and it's only occurring in states where it's not clear whether it's a political loser or winner; that's where leadership can make a difference, and that's where we see people leading the fight for justice.
Oh, and: Yes, a good Democrat can be against gay marriage. But a good person can't. Someone could have been a good party hack and opposed interacial marriage, too, back in the day, but they still would have been a shitty person not worthy of the dog shit I accidentally stepped in today.
Go to hell, bigot.
May 20, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
why dont we all just pick one issue that is "dragging" us down and give up on it?
then since we have no support for anything we will all be happy like you.
you are a biggot.
May 20, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bill isn't dead:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/report-new-hampshire-house-rejects-amended-gay-marriage/?test=latestnews
The Senate passed the changes 14-10 Wednesday, but the House failed to agree later in the day by a vote of 188-186. Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.
The attempt to directly kill it failed by a wide margin. It will go to conference, and will almost certainly come out with something will pass and that isn't *exactly* what Lynch wants. Which will ping pong it back to Lynch.
People are playing politics. Whether the what comes out of conference is enough for Lynch to change will be of interest, or if enough pressure will be brought to bear on Lynch to stop being a prick.
But it's not dead, and it will likely pass. For all his posturing and desire to play both sides, Lynch in the end doesn't want to be on the "wrong side" of this. If he did, he would have simply vetoed it. That was the easiest way out for him. Instead, he's trying to show enough of a pro-religon posture to win some potential voters.
John
May 20, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more with the comments by THE_TRUTH posted above. Being for gay marriage is NOT something Democrats should be assumed to favor. Politically it's a loser issue. It does nothing but hurt the Dem party to be associated with this issue.
Some of the activists will say that it's the right thing to do on the merits. I couldn't disagree more. No Democratic politician should have to defend the acitivist position on this and have this albatross hung around their neck.
And it certainly cost us the 2004 election and possibly the 2000 one as well. Of course the Repubs demagouged the issue, but you can't do that unless there is any opening to do it. And there was and is thanks the gay marriage avtivists.
I'm a Democrat and this issue doesn't represent something the party needs to be stuck with.
May 20, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does supporting marriage equality do nothing but hurt Democrats? How do you think dems taking up the cause would impact support from, umm, gay people? Or people who think marriage should be about love rather than the religion of a few imposed on all?
You say that marriage equality shouldn't be supported on the merits. Why not? What rationale can you provide for prohibiting people from choosing the person they marry?
It's amazing all the things that allegedly cost the democrats the 2000 election. Al Gore failed to secure a decisive victory and so it came down to a supreme court coin toss. End of story (unless you want to talk about Bush fighting dirty).
May 20, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see myriad holes in the reasoning over avoiding gay marriage as an issue.
First, the fear that gay marriage is going to become a state by state battle again seems almost impossible to me. Most states where a vast majority of citizens fear and abhor the idea of two men or two women being legally married (as no government can possibly deny a spiritual or emotional union) have already passed constitutional amendments declaring marriage between a man and woman. So unless the suggestion for "good democrats" would be to jump on board with a federal amendment, there is not really anywhere for a gay marriage battle to go. And I would imagine that a majority of Americans probably would react favorably to a polling question such as "Do you believe that the states have the right to issues marriage licenses based on state law?"
Second, I believe that American views on gay marriage are evolving more quickly now as more and more states legalize gay marriage. There used to be a time not but 5-10 years ago when the argument against gay marriage could be nothing more than. "If we do this there will be dudes kissing in the streets (illegally having sex in their own beds at that time too, pre Lawrence v Texas)." That argument has been since changed to "They are going to force priests and churches to marry gays." It shows an vast change in tactic (as well as a change to lies over truth) that seems to point to old arguments losing traction. Let's not forget that opposing Don't Ask Don't Tell used to be political suicide.
Third, I think that as a party if Democrats start focusing on political expediency as opposed to long-term development then we will start to look like the Republicans. Sure the gay marriage issue was politically expedient and helped save Republicans' collective asses in '04. But you can only constitutionally ban gay marriage once. If Democrats' ideology becomes only focused on squeaking out temporary victories, then as a party we face becoming a party more concerned for the party than our fellow citizens.
Finally, on an idealistic note, using human rights as wedge issues shows contempt for your fellow man than seems cold at best and blindly egocentric at worst.
May 20, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lifelong Democrat. I too am glad that this is not being fought during an election year. Politically it is a loser. There is always someplace to take the debate if there are people who see gain in fighting over this topic. There will always be a tangent argument.
About Democrats focusing on political expediency....
We as Dems had better be focused on political reality. If we hold out over any one principal to the detriment of all other principles and political realities, then the party will be just like the Republicans. Can you say abortion.
A Republican can hold the cure for cancer, AIDS, and heart disease, and erase the national debt, while bringing world peace and economic prosperity, but if he is not against abortion he can't get nominated, PERIOD. Never mind the fact that bringing economic prosperity is actually going to reduce the number of abortions. They are loyal to the principle for the principle's sake and have lost sight of the well-being of the people.
May 20, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent demonstration of how there is always "someplace to take the debate", you have completely avoided providing any substance in your post. You say marriage equality is a political loser. Why?
You say there is no benefit in holding out on one principle over all others. What principles have to be given up to support gay marriage? Are you completely unprincipled?
You don't make an argument against marriage equality, so is it safe to say that you aren't opposed to it just too indifferent to support it? If so, why don't you spend your time arguing for the things you do support rather than against the things you are indifferent to?
May 20, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a lifelong democrat, married with kids. I have had gay friends all my adult life, who were in committed long-term relationships. I support gay marriage, by which I mean, the right to go get a license from the state that gives both people in the relationship the identical status that I have as a married person.
If they go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple and ask for a religious ceremony, and they are turned down - well, you can't have everything. Find another person to officiate. That is what I did when I was turned down. (It happened.)
But where in the world does a person whose job it is to minister to his or her co-religionists get the idea that he can tell others who do not share his beliefs that she cannot marry her in a courthouse, or he cannot marry him? And how strange and uncharitable, how blind! The proper response for religious people who do not believe religiously sanctioned gay marriage is possible or proper is to be open about their commitments and limitations, but also to be kind, and help gay couples to have what they are entitled to have, but where it neither depends on nor disturbs the religious community that cannot go along.
I regret it, but I don't know much about the poisoned amendment at issue today.
May 20, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point: a great deal of Democratic Party popularity among youth comes from its support of marriage equality.
And, in the long term, gay marriage is coming. Being on the right side of history pays dividends down the road. Look at how people who associate with people who were for segregation do among the AA community, nowadays. Standing up for marriage equality now means, down the road, maintaining our great strength in a politically active, donor-class demographic.
May 20, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that this is a political blog and so what I am about to say will not even be an opinion held in the plurality, but why can't the national dialogue reach beyond "political reality" and actually delve into reality itself?
Zephyrus was completely right in the notion that gay marriage is coming. As gays become less and less closeted and more omnipresent, more Americans are realizing that homosexuality is not an esoteric "choice" reserved for the depraved and Godless. The gay men and women of this country are your doctors and lawyers and teachers and children and friends and soldiers. Hence the change in dialogue among most thinking Americans (sorry, Senator Sessions). The arguments for homosexuals being sick and evil are failing and lies are the last resort. I have never met a single proponent of gay marriage who has ever wanted to force the religious community into marrying gays in their sacred spaces in violation of faith.
Marriage in this sense is about equal legal protection. "political reality" might decree that civil unions are the answer, but separate is not equal no matter how hard you try, and forcing one group to call themselves something different is separating them as a subgroup, a less equal group.
I also find the comparison between gay marriage and abortion to be pretty misguided. Legalized abortion in the United States was the result of a US Supreme Court decision that affected the entire US. Gay marriage is being legalized today by state legislatures (as the are Constitutionally allowed to do) or by state Supreme Courts who are finding current statute to be in violation of the state's constitution. New Hampshire law will not affect Mississippi's state constitution, which declares marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I also believe that one of the Democratic Party's great strengths as a majority party (at least in terms of crafting law and leading...maybe not a strength for maintaining power) is pubic dialogue over the national party's platform. Democrats tend to vote more along their districts' ideologies rather than based on party ideology. This is, of course, contrary to the Republican party which shows extreme discipline in following and trumpeting the party's agenda over their constituents'. However, the flip side to this difference in party operation means that Democrats from states that support gay marriage can nationally support gay marriage and those who don't do not have to. And while most Party Folk might caution against actually representing constituents over representing Democrats, I believe that that system of representation is good for our country and good for our government.
And again, playing politics with human rights is cynicism at its worst if it goes against personal belief.
May 20, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Eric - this is a load of codswallop.
The blame is squarely on the governor. He could have signed HB 436 weeks ago. The NH House and Senate both passed a marriage equality bill that was very clear about the differences between civil and religious marriage.
Instead, Lynch decided he decided to put on a show - desperately hoping something like this would happen to cover his cowering and pandering ass.
May 20, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The religious exemption against gay people is utter hypocrisy. What would the same defenders of this exemption say if there was another exemption that said a person could refuse for religious reason to marry people of a certain race? Would anyone stand for it? NO! So why is it OK to allow people to use religion to discriminate against gay people but not against people of a different race?
Utter BS. Its wrong to discriminate period - both with regards to race AND sexual orientation!
May 21, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Democrat BECAUSE I thought Democrats were the party in favor of protecting the rights of minorities, especially those that are unpopular.
Sometimes, doing the right thing is not the most politically expedient choice. Such situations are the true test of a politician's character. [Consider the recipients of the Profiles in Courage Award over the years as prime examples of doing the right thing even if it wasn't popular.]
The current focus on marriage equality was not the strategy of most gay activists. They planned to make progress and build momentum with issues such as sodomy laws, employment discrimination, hate crimes and such before addressing military service and marriage. But then the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling and a few years later, here we are.
Now is not the time to back away, when full equality is so near. Consider the progress that has been achieved in such a short time. We even have elected politicians passing and signing marriage equality laws! It does not take much imagination to foresee SCOTUS declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconsitutional. Then the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause will lead to all of the state constitutional amendments being invalidated.
In the end, this issue comes down to a simple question. I'd like to ask someone, anyone to tell me just how long gay people have to wait for marriage equality? When will the time be right? And then, I'd like to ask them if they would be willing to wait that long for the right to marry the person they loved?
May 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink