Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

United States: New Hampshire Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect page

I do not believe there is enough material to warrant this article. Until NH has SSMs, I think we should redirect it to LGBT rights in New Hampshire. The newly created LGBT rights in NH article can probably better fulfill the needs of this topic without creating a stubs. ZueJay (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably actually be moved to Civil unions in New Hampshire, since it looks like that's a status that will actually exist, and there are similar pages for other states. --Jfruh (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I originally created this page with the expectation that New Hampshire was going to pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage, but it appears now that civil unions will soon be legal. If somebody wants to take care of the move, I would completely support it. RFlynn26 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But I am bit bugged at the sloppiness of the enacted redirect - there were tons of templates, articles, etc that were already linked to the SSM article which you all failed to change when you created the redirect nearly two days ago - please keep this in mind when creating redirects in the future, it behooves one to check "What links here" and make the neccessary corrections. See WP:REDIRECT and WP:DblR.
Also note that significantly more information regarding this subject still exists in the articles Civil unions, Civil union in the United States and LGBT rights in New Hampshire. The information should be migrated post-haste, as well as changing the templates in this article from those of an SSM to Civil Unions. Grr - looks like I got my work cut out for me. I know you guys are thinking in the right direction, but I wasn't looking forward to working on this to such a significant extent... Bugger... ZueJay (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed legislature

The legislature passed already the bill for civil unions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.95.99.8 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, the bill did pass the New Hampshire General Court; however, it must be signed, or not vetoed, by the governor to become law and therefore a legally permissible binding contract in and to the state. ZueJay (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was premature. Same-sex marriage is not actually legal yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Aervanath (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Senate approved same-sex marriage yesterday. We should merge these two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin. There are four edits of Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire that were created as a content fork of this article. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are 'civil unions' restricted to same-sex couples or can heterosexual couples also get them? If heteros can also get them, then they should remain separate. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the measure still have to be approved by the NH house and signed by the governor? Let's wait until we see what happens. Czolgolz (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not rename?

No, it is not, but most people search for "same sex marriage in new hampshire" and not civil unions. Besides, the House and the Senate have now passed it, and the governor has promised to sign it. Why not change the title to reflect what people search for? Besides, it seems to be a matter of a few days before it is all wrapped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimiethedog (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the governor is supposed to sign it at 5:15 EDT today. I agree, this should be renamed.Tinmanic (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire house rejects governors changes

This is a developing story on the news I saw (WHDH NBC Boston). Appearently the house rejected the governors changes to the gay marriage bill. Now if this is true does that slim the chances that the governor will accept it? Knowledgekid87 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Here's an update though: while the House narrowly didn't pass it (188-186 vote), they also voted not to kill it (173 to 302), and voted to save it (207-168), and it will now head to committee in conference with the Senate. [1][2] - Epson291 (talk)

This just goes to show there is no room for predictions in Wikipedia. People kept "rosying" up the article saying same-sex marriage in NH is "all but certain." Any statements contrary to this were removed. That is opinion and doesn't have a place in the article. The article should be based in fact and not act as a mouth piece for advocates of SSM. -Joshua4 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree and have tried to make changes myself in the SSM topics in the past but some get reverted, wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and nobody can predict the future. -Knowledgekid87 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that New Hampshire has SSM, it's time to move this page. - Epson291 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

Here is the Amendment to the Bill:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010. Source: NH Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island is also entirely surrounded by marriage equality territory

I have deleted the sentence that says New Hampshire is the only state entirely surrounded by marriage equality territory. Rhode Island is entirely surrounded by Connecticut and Massachusetts. Also, New Hampshire is poised to legalize same-sex marriage today anyway, rendering this statement moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.145.220 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in naming?

For consistency, shouldn’t this article be named “Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire”? Right now, that’s a redirect to “Recognition of same-sex unions in New Hampshire”. — J’raxis ✆✍ 22:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, especially given the signing of the bill today. I note that there's an article Same-sex marriage in New York even though that state has not, to date, passed a bill for this. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for a speedy delete in order to move this. - Epson291 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved. - Epson291 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Marriage may be outlawed in NH despite popular opinion

The Republican legislature, with enough votes to override a veto from the Democratic Governor, may soon vote to kill civil marriage.

A poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, 59 percent of respondents were either strongly or somewhat opposed to repealing the law, while 32 percent said they supported repeal.

Abby Goodnough (February 27, 2012). "As Gay Marriage Gains Ground in Nation, New Hampshire May Revoke Its Law". New York Times.

The talk page is for a discussion about article, it's not place for news. If you want include this information about the poll, you should to do that in the article, not here. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, I was starting a discussion of how to incorporate the "Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire" current poll results and plans to repeal "Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire" into this article. To help edit, I have provided 2 high-quality sources. This is precisely on topic.

--Javaweb (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

What is your question or proposal to be discussed? Hekerui (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the poll data and information on repeal efforts into the article, based on these references. --Javaweb (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Are you have problems with eyes? Informations about repeal effort are already in article. See "Possible repeal" subsection in section Marriage. You could add the results of the poll to subsection "Public Opinion". Ron 1987 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012

(UTC)

I know that the repeal attempt is in the article. I was presenting the source to fellow editors to see if that section needed updating or not. That is why I discussed this in Talk, rather than just editing the page.

Ron, RE:Removing another editor's contribution from Talk Page
I trust you have now read and understand the policy on removing or modifying another editor's work from Talk pages. Here is the edit to this Talk Page where you removed it. I have restored it. If you have questions or comments on an editor's talk page contribution, reply on the talk page.
--Javaweb (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

The New York Times article reports that the bill must be voted by March 29, except that there is nothing new. There is little to update, and I will do that. Regarding second part of the post: Very funny. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Done. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]