House Does Not Concur on HB73

Wow! The NH House just voted 186-188 not to concur with the Senate Amendment to HB73. The question is why this failed. Was Steve Vallaincourt successful with his argument?

We’d have to consult the various roll calls to see who changed their votes and ask why.

I’m listening to the streaming audio as I’m typing. Shawn Jasper, a Republican, made a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill, which basically kills it for the biennium. It would then need a 2/3 vote to be brought up again. Andy Peterson did this with the Governor’s first school funding amendment. The indefinite postponement is of the motion by Dan Eaton to non concur and request a committee of conference. The motion failed.

It’s going to a Committee of Conference.

What will happen now?  


94 Responses to House Does Not Concur on HB73

  1. StevenPlace May 21, 2009 at 1:30 am #

    Fox (i know, it was randomly on) just said the bill was killed? Completely?  

    • davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 1:42 am #
  2. Blanco May 21, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    My heart just sank.

  3. ElsieElsie May 21, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    when on a daily basis, basic civil rights are a political football.

    [deleted incredibly bitter statement]

  4. Blanco May 21, 2009 at 1:49 am #

    Are they still talking about it? I know something similar happened the first time HB436 was voted on in the House. Can we still hope?

    • davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 1:52 am #

      No they’re not talking about it now.  The next step is a conference, where the house and senate will each send members and come back with unified language that cannot be amended by either house.  Up-or-down vote in both houses then for passage of HB73.  Then it’s up to Lynch.

      • Blanco May 21, 2009 at 1:54 am #

        Alright. Now I’m gonna have to stress about Lynch all over again.

        How long do these conferences last?

      • Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:10 am #

        There are two Rs in the House who just seemed to indicate that they would support revised language. I think the Senate is probably good, actually…not that we should let up on them when the time comes, but Senators are responsible to more constituents and belong to a less fluid body than the House. Also, we may need the votes of a few Rs in the House, and it seems there’s no danger of that in the Senate.

  5. FrankLloydMike May 21, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    with the proposed changes that they couldn’t agree to pass, and now need to have a conference on? I’d like to know the specifics of why they couldn’t just pass this today, and when this conference will be happening? This really is ridiculous at this point.

    • Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:14 am #

      That the House voted against concurrence with HB 73 by a vote of 186-188. That the House voted to send the bill to conference committee with the Senate by 207-168 (I believe). It is clear that at least one Representative, Steve Vaillancourt, voted against concurrence but is a supporter of equality. Others certainly voted against for other reasons. There is no reason why “they couldn’t just pass this today” other than the vote failed.

      I believe the conference committee will happen as scheduled by the leadership; I suspect quickly (as they have acted so far) but really have no idea.

      • Nanuq May 21, 2009 at 8:40 am #

        Sorry if this is perfectly obvious to all of you, or moot because you know Rep. Vaillancourt at least by reputation (and I don’t).

        There’s a parliamentary maneuver used when a bill is likely to be defeated. One of the bill’s supporter’s is designated to vote no, because only a “no” voter on a defeated bill can ask for the bill to be reconsidered. Maybe this applies to Rep. Vaillancourt, maybe not. Maybe that’s giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

    • davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 2:14 am #

      Vaillincourt (and a handful of others) want(s) to play hardball with Lynch and strip out most/all of the religious exemptions; the majority of the Republican caucus would rather see the bill dead; the majority of the Democrats want the bill passed.
      After the bill was defeated initially, sending it to conference was the way to keep it alive (and let Vaillincourt play his games).
      It’s high-stakes chicken – but my intuition says that the conference report will come out within 2 weeks and pass both houses (by margins similar to HB 436), and Lynch will sign, as long as the changes made in conference are moderate in scope (and preferably in-line with VT and CT’s exemptions).

      • Michael Marsh May 21, 2009 at 3:18 am #

        there is no way on Earth Mr. V. gets on the committee-of-conference, so he will not be in a position to dictate any of the compromose language.

    • JonnyBBad May 21, 2009 at 2:16 am #

      He is such a jerk.

      • todd May 21, 2009 at 2:33 am #

        is a disgrace. He only opposed the bill because he was unhappy the governor tried to take both sides. If he really supported equality, he would have supported the bill. He is beyond pathetic and a mockery of what this country stands for. He doesn’t vote his conscience on bills but instead uses them for his own political benefit. He has no concern his selfishness will only further the unhappiness of many. Finally, he’ll come to this site touting how everyone should have listened to him and act as if he is a decent human being, act it so well that everyone may believe him–except me, because I know how rotten he is.

  6. BurtCohen May 21, 2009 at 2:14 am #

    Now walks away appearing to befriend both sides. Isn’t that special.
    He sails through unscathed, the anti’s may see him as their hero, having already dismissed and dealt with the equal marriage side.
    One sickening football.  

    • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 2:31 am #

      See, JonnyBBad’s comment above.

      • BurtCohen May 21, 2009 at 2:33 am #

        Why do I get the image of an eel?

        • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 2:52 am #

          See, Todd’s comment above.

          • BurtCohen May 21, 2009 at 3:06 am #

            He could have just signed the bill?

            His amendment language was totally redundant and unnecessary, the churches were already completely protected, everyone knew that.

            His motivation was obviously not to make a better bill but simply to cover his ass. No more no less.

            • todd May 21, 2009 at 3:15 am #

              Steve Vaillancourt is a horrible individual. Let that be known from this, whatever happens. If anything else, let that be known. He’ll come here with his childish signature: “Kathy the S’s least favorite marriage equality supporter.” He is a hack and a caricature of a qualified lawmaker. He isn’t a supporter of equality. He is a supporter of advancing his own political means at the expense of others.

              • Michael Marsh May 21, 2009 at 3:26 am #

                We had a few tussles last session, mostly over taxes and differences in revenue estimates. In my dealings with him I found him to be bright, but quick to take offense. He reminds me of a malevolent child at times, and he clearly has very, very deep emotional scars.

                I feel sorry for him. Of all the people I met in the legislature, there is nobody else whose shoes I would rather not have to walk in.

              • susanthe May 21, 2009 at 3:39 am #

                but Lynch should have signed the bill 2 weeks ago. This little tapdance was completely unnecessary, and risky. So risky that one wonders if this was the kind of outcome Lynch was hoping for.  

                • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 4:22 am #

                  The Governor was not hoping for this outcome.

                  • BurtCohen May 21, 2009 at 7:12 am #

                    You actually know he was not hoping for this outcome? How do you know this, pray tell?

                    If he was hoping for a different outcome, like, the bill passing, he could have, dare I say, signed it.

                    • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 7:27 am #
                    • Rep. Jim Splaine May 21, 2009 at 7:28 am #

                      …it’s about delivering on a request that the Governor has legitimately made asking for clear statutory language protecting the freedom and independence of religion.  Let’s make that work.  And let’s keep an eye on the big picture:  to see House Bill 436 become law, we have to pass House Bill 73.  

                      It does no good to carry on a discussion about why people do what they do.  We have to use all our voices, all our typing fingers to find a way to make this work.

                      What this IS about are tens of thousands of New Hampshire gays and lesbians who are knocking on the door of equality, but will only get it if we don’t lose focus at this point.

                    • JonnyBBad May 21, 2009 at 8:36 am #

                      It Protects Everyone Or No One    

                    • Rep. Jim Splaine May 21, 2009 at 9:09 am #

                      …to clarify protections for all groups is also important.  Otherwise, would we ever need anything more than just a Constitution?  

                    • JonnyBBad May 21, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

                      please support not allowing state workers (on overtime) to put up the Christmas tree on the statehouse lawn. We pretend to be secular but have a creche and a Christmas tree…then we get told its ‘not religious’. I want protection from that load of illogic.

            • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 3:21 am #

              You may think it was not necessary, but others did not, so please don’t say “everyone knew that”.

              I appreciate the need to vent, but the goal here is to get the votes necessary to pass the bill when it comes out of conference committee, so let’s not fight with each other, let’s get to work!!  

      • Mike Caulfield May 21, 2009 at 3:26 am #

        Back for meaningless changes.

        I’m sorry, but that is his fault. Blaming anyone else is ridiculous.

        • FrankLloydMike May 21, 2009 at 3:32 am #

          I don’t think he’s the only one to blame by far here, but the changes do seem very insignificant and he must have known there was a chance something like this would happen. I don’t know if there’s a political motive here or not, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he really is willing to support this, I really wish he would have just signed it last week and avoided this whole mess.

        • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 4:26 am #

          I disagree that the changes were meaningless, and I disagree that it is the governor’s fault, but I agree that blaming anyone is ridiculous.

          Let’s stop bickering and get to work getting the bill passed.  

  7. JonnyBBad May 21, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    New Hampshire Freedom to Marry remains confident of final passage of the marriage bill this session. We very narrowly missed today, but the House voted by a wide margin to keep the bill alive and to work out remaining concerns. We expect to see another vote in the next two weeks, and there is very good reason to remain positive. Please continue to contact your House and Senate members. Stay tuned!

  8. davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    Voting Against bill but For Conference:

    Beauchamp, Belvin, Boisvert, Buco, Carlson, DeStefano, DiFruscia, Dokmo, Donovan, Garrity, Jeudy, Kidder, Movsesian, Owen, Pilliod, Rhodes, Rokas, Shaw, Soucy, Sullivan, Vaillancourt

    • Jennifer Daler May 21, 2009 at 3:20 am #

      Vallaincourt, Pilliod, Dokomo, Beauchamp, Owen, and Shaw were the only ones to vote yea on 436, but nay on this. There are Two Sullivans and two Garritys, so I don’t know which ones are being referred to. It seems as though the others were against 436, and also against the compromise, but didn’t want the issue to die.

      • Mormo May 21, 2009 at 3:28 am #
      • davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 3:32 am #

        Daniel Sullivan and Patrick Garrity.

        I also looked at the 436 history – taking into account both votes on 436 (before it went to the Senate and after), Vaillancourt and Dokmo were the only ones to vote nay this time and yea both other times.  If both had swallowed their pride just a little, this bill would have passed.

        • Jennifer Daler May 21, 2009 at 3:41 am #

          issue for Cynthia Dokomo. She is a lawyer and an intelligent person. She must have had her reasons for voting the way she did on the Senate Amendment.

  9. davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 3:09 am #

    For the updates on the conference committees.

    (as well as the bill docket itself, here:) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u

  10. Jennifer Daler May 21, 2009 at 3:22 am #

    We lost 17 Democratic seats in the State House in ’08. This vote would have looked very different if we had held those seats, and perhaps gained a few more.

    • robert May 21, 2009 at 4:05 am #

      Another note to check was that we lost the vote of the recently appointed Commissioner, there were other absences on the Democratic side (at least three supporters). On the Republican side there were seats filled that haven’t had an occupant all session and a newly elected Rep. These are the vagaries of the citizen legislature, (which is far more of a fact than was stated upthread). The opponents made sure their votes were in the house.  

  11. brianrater May 21, 2009 at 3:24 am #

    It hasn’t been mentioned here yet, but there was a motion to “indefinitely postpone” voting on the bill, which would have killed it.  That vote failed 172-202 (!)  Clearly, there the votes to pass a marriage bill (again) in the House if we just come up with the right language that enough people (including the Governor) can support.

    I’m sorry to say it, but we are going to be in for two more weeks of robocalls.

    • JonnyBBad May 21, 2009 at 3:51 am #

      it will be good news for the robocall industry…but it will pass, through Committee and be signed in this session with proper language to satisfy the narrow differences in the reading of existing law.

      • daftdaoud May 21, 2009 at 3:58 am #

        one can only hope it will pass!
        i’m sorry if i sound snappy or what not, but this is exactly why it failed. people were sure it would pass, sat on their asses and did nothing.
        all that was needed was 1 vote.
        and here we are, our lives up to other people’s choices. again.
        the pain. the anger.

        • Mike Caulfield May 21, 2009 at 4:12 am #

          But from who voted against, it doesn’t look to me to be a case where people “sitting on their asses and doing nothing” played into it at all.

          This looks more to me like the somewhat chaotic actions that can happen when narrowly passed compromises are sent back.

          Remember — this is essentially the third time this has been in front of them — the Senate changed it to suit their purposes, and then Lynch had to have his changes. Human nature dictates that reopening compromises is going to be a risky business.

          We’ve done it here twice now, so that the Governor could have his Kabuki, and the Senate could have theirs. Are we really surprised that now certain people in the house want to make their own little drama?

          • daftdaoud May 21, 2009 at 4:37 am #

            you will be proved right. i really do. i hope the democrats (and the republicans) who supported this from the beginning can work something out. especially so close to the finish line…

    • Jennifer Daler May 21, 2009 at 3:53 am #
      • brianrater May 21, 2009 at 3:57 am #
  12. This Was The Moment May 21, 2009 at 4:17 am #

    It’s not HB436.  HB436, as I understand it, is in some kind of arcane procedural holding process immediately preceding its presentation to the Governor.  Voting on HB73 doesn’t affect the final outcome of HB436, which could sit there and wait while the legislature attaches the Lynch amendment, with any compromises, to this or anything else.  If HB73 is procedurally gone beyond repair, can’t we just attach amendment language to something else while HB436 is still pending?

    • Mike Caulfield May 21, 2009 at 4:28 am #

      Although I don’t think the governor has what it takes to now say “OK, give me the compromise or I sign HB436 unamended and you can write up whatever amendments you want next year.”

      I’d be impressed if that was the case, but nothing I’ve seen with Lynch indicates he’s capable of such action.  

    • Mike Caulfield May 21, 2009 at 4:39 am #

      by which HB436 is being held?

      Can Lynch sign it at will? What has to happen?

      • This Was The Moment May 21, 2009 at 4:52 am #

        My understanding is that they can delay (and are delaying) this indefinitely by postponing the completion of some procedural technicality (like getting the Secretary of State to enroll the bill), meaning HB436 can sit there and wait, neither signed nor vetoed, until companion legislation is ready to go at the same time.

        It might be more complicated than that; I don’t claim to have an sufficient understanding of the post-legislative limbo phase.  Input by someone who knows more than I do would be greatly appreciated.

      • Rep. Jim Splaine May 21, 2009 at 4:53 am #

        What has to happen is the Governor’s requested language to protect freedom and independence of religion has to pass into statute, and that means House Bill 73 has to pass.  The good news is that we can do this — the House by a vote of 207 to 168 said that we should have a Committee of Conference to find a way to do this.

        The Committee will be created next Wednesday when the State Senate agrees with the House on the motion.  THEN the CoC will be appointed — three or four House members, and three or four Senate members.  They will be members appointed by the House Speaker and Senate President.  It will have members dedicated to finding a solution.  

        The House and Senate next meet together in two weeks, on Wednesday, June 3rd.  The CoC will report back then, possibly with some new language in the bill.  

        Between now and then, our job — your job — for this to succeed will be to take a careful look at those who have not yet supported us, and ask them to do so.  Since last Thursday, when Governor John Lynch announced his support for marriage equality and House Bill 436, and offered his requested new language for HB 73, we have only had four days to communicate it.  NOW we have 14 days.  We can win this when more House members hear about why they should support the Governor’s language.  

        • This Was The Moment May 21, 2009 at 5:07 am #
          • Rep. Jim Splaine May 21, 2009 at 5:45 am #

            Wednesday, June 3rd is the next time the House and Senate will meet on the same day.  Senate meets next Wednesday; the House does not. We have other work to do in Committees, however, so we’re not loafing.

        • jpmassar May 21, 2009 at 5:14 am #

          How could supporters have allowed this to come to a vote with members who would vote in favor absent when the outcome was in doubt?

          Someone or some group really snookered supporters.
          Whomever was responsible for pulling this off must be dancing in the streets.

          • brianrater May 21, 2009 at 5:52 am #

            The fact is that the House had high attendance compared to a typical day at the statehouse.  Both sides tried to get all of their supporters out.  Every vote taken on this bill has been razor thin and I certainly wasn’t expecting this one to be any different.  It’s impossible to do a vote count accurate enough to determine how a vote like this will go.  There is a random chance no matter what day you hold the vote on.

            • jpmassar May 21, 2009 at 6:39 am #


              Claims the anti forces did a better job of getting their members to be present.

              Someone dropped the ball.  The previous vote had a margin of 11.  That’s not razor thin.

              • Rep. Jim Splaine May 21, 2009 at 6:44 am #

                And will YOU help us win next time?  Maybe you can pick up that ball?  We need your work.  Let us know your plan.  We’re listening.  Thank you.

              • susanthe May 21, 2009 at 7:10 am #

                concern is interesting.  

              • Tim C. May 21, 2009 at 10:25 am #

                But there are a very large number of commenters here who have each forgotten more about this particular issue and process in NH than the entire TPM staff combined has ever known.

                And this question

                How could supporters have allowed this to come to a vote with members who would vote in favor absent when the outcome was in doubt?

                indicates that you do not understand how the NH Legislature operates.  If you’re an out-of-stater, that’s fine, we won’t hold your assumptions about legislative procedure against you.  Just know that the NH legislature is not Congress, and does not act like Congress, and that is a good thing.

        • Kathy Sullivan 2 May 21, 2009 at 5:17 am #

          The most credible voice on this topic has spoken!

        • d_goddard May 21, 2009 at 5:22 am #

          … for your tireless efforts.

          What’s going on here is PERSONAL (not party) politics, presumably between Reps. Vaillancourt, Dokmo, and one or more people in the Lynch administration. I am 100% sure there is plenty of blame to go around, on several people.

          Whatever. It’s disappointing, but we need to continue pushing this issue. I am reasonably confident we’ll see marriage equality in NH this session. And I’ll do whatever I can to help.

          Oh, and… first post. Hey everybody :)

          • This Was The Moment May 21, 2009 at 5:31 am #

            I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
            End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

            You’ve declared war on war itself.  I say, give peace a chance.

            • d_goddard May 21, 2009 at 6:11 am #

              Waaaay OT, but… I guess you could say I have declared “war”, of a sort, on the one institution that instigates and propagates wars.

              Not really “war”, of course. Debate, information, and nonviolent noncooperation are the weapons I’m using.

              The initiation of violence is never an acceptable solution, no matter what the problem.

  13. JimC May 21, 2009 at 10:14 am #

    I’ll just say this once: When John Lynch said he would not sign the bill as it stood, and was in fact willing to veto the bill in its form two weeks ago, he empowered the opposition by sending a clear signal that he would not fight for the bill. Instead he forced the supporters (those of his own party, who had already fought long and hard) to fight again.

    Regardless of what he wanted or intended, he dropped the ball by failing to lead. Focus on Steve Vaillencourt if you like, but blaming the GOP for defeating a bill that nearly all Republicans oppose is like blaming the Yankees for having a batting lineup.

    And the protections he asked for? They couldn’t wait until next session? Local Catholic and Baptist churches were going to be flooded with gay marriages?

    This is absolutely and completely John Lynch’s fault. If a new bill passes in two weeks, and I hope it does, it will be despite the governor’s intervention, not because of it. He literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    This is a sad day for the Democratic Party, and not just in New Hampshire. Nationally.

    • Mike Caulfield May 21, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

      Yes, a failure nationally.

      Were the changes meaningless? I think so. Some disagree — fine. But no one argue that the unamended bill posed some sort of present danger. It could have been tweaked next session were it not for Lynch’s need to — well, whatever. I’m done attributing motives to people for their failure to lead.

      And yes, nationally. That can’t be repeated enough.

      I keep hearing this “it’s stupid to blame anyone for this” mantra.

      Well, no. Blame is Anglo-Saxon for accountability — and if you don’t believe in accountability, I’m not sure what political discussion could possibly be about.

      Hold on for two weeks and see where this is — sure. But not mention the massive FAIL this represents? I don’t really see how we can’t.  

      • JimC May 21, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

        I left that way about your comment above.

        • JimC May 21, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

          Not left. Freudian slip.

      • elwood May 22, 2009 at 5:44 am #

        It doesn’t really matter whether that’s original with you, ’cause I’m gonna steal it outright anyhow.

  14. jimmyQ May 21, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    …if I bang my head on my desk one more time I’ll probably go into a coma.

    Please pass this, NH.

  15. Scott May 21, 2009 at 1:38 am #

    With all due respect, Thom, I highly doubt any marriage equality supporters voted against the language becaues of your concerns (legitimate as they  may be).  

    No, this vote was still a proxy for the struggle between pro- v. anti-equality factions.  And somehow, the anti- forces won this battle.

    We will win the war…but this certainly was a sucker punch to the stomach.

  16. gaydg May 21, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    ….. new hampshire but its not going to happen folks (maybe next year)… here is why it is not going to happen…. the governor has said that he would not sign  the gay marriage bill with out both the house and senate passing hb73 also sending it to the Committee of Conference could take several weeks(which was not agreed by the govenor)which at that time it will have to be sent back to the senate and house for another vote… it will give anti-gay marriage supporters time to come up with ways to defeat this bill.

    I don’t understand why they didn’t take a 15 min. break and do a second roll call…. they have done this on other important issues… why not this time… they only needed 2 people to change their vote from no to yes….

    we are being played and this governor should be kicked out of office because it should have been his job to sign the first bill that was sent to him… he should not have the right to veto a bill or ask the house and senate to make changes just because he doesn’t like something…. its wrong … time to make changes to that old law.

    very sad day:(

    California Surprme Court is going to rule tomorrow on Propoistion 8…. lets hope for better news…… also New York Senate has till June 22 to vote on gay marriage, doesn’t look like it is going to happen, lets hope some changes take place:)

  17. Scott May 21, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    I would add, Thom, that I hope I’m being unduly cynical.  And that there were indeed marriage equality supporters who voted against this because they wanted to improve the language re: antidiscrimination protections.

    The test for that will come when/if the House votes on the language that comes out of the committee.

  18. jimmyQ May 21, 2009 at 1:43 am #

    …how the conference vote will go? It might still pass, right?

    If you’re right, then Lynch should be ashamed for this sucker-punch. He has backed himself into a corner. If he doesn’t get the reconciled bills on his desk to sign, he can do nothing. Gay marriage is dead in NH, and he’ll be blamed.

    Good fucking god.

  19. davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    The California Supreme Court is not ruling tomorrow on anything.

  20. Scott May 21, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    No, California will not be issuing its Prop 8 decision tomorrow.  Tuesday at the earliest.

  21. ElsieElsie May 21, 2009 at 1:44 am #
  22. Blanco May 21, 2009 at 1:45 am #

    Gavin Newsom asked the Court to delay its decision because of the White Night Riots anniversary.

  23. jimmyQ May 21, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    I’m confused. I live in NYC, was telling people this was basically a done deal, and now this?

    What about bonehead Villaincourt? He’s a supporter of gay marriage, right? WHY WOULD HE FUCKING DO THIS!!!!!

    Now CA might now not overturn Prop Hate. What a fuckhead, that guy. These people know not what they do. Once again, perfection becomes the enemy of the good.

    Jesus Fucking Christ I can’t believe this!!!

  24. Scott May 21, 2009 at 1:46 am #

    Hi Jimmy,

    As I clarified, maybe I’m being too cynical.  But to lose this vote today — and so narrowly — was a bitter, bitter disappointment.

    However, I would love to be proven wrong by the House and Senate BOTH approving committee-developed language.

    Does anyone have a realistic timetable for this process?

  25. gaydg May 21, 2009 at 1:55 am #
    San Fransisco Police Department
    San Diego police departments

    There is going to be a ruling on Proposition 8 tomorrow…..

    LOS ANGELES: Rally and March starting in West Hollywood. When: 7:00 pm on Decision Day / March starts ~ 8 pm, Where: Santa Monica Blvd & San Vicente Blvd, What to bring: * White Ribbon to tie White Knots all along our march, * White Flowers to lay in Matthew Shepard Human Rights Park, * White Chalk to write messages in the road and on the sidewalks, * Wear White to show our unity in supporting same-sex marriage, * Bring signs and bullhorns and anything else to make noise…let them hear us united and strong.

    You can also meet the march at approximately 9:30pm at Hollywood & Highland, Rally at the L.A. County Marriage License Office, When: 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm on Decision Day, Where: 4716 East Ceasar Chavez Avenue, L.A., CA 90022

    In NEW YORK: “New Yorkers will be meeting at 6 PM on Thursday, May 21st (should the decision be handed down) at Sheridan Square in Greenwich Village (Christopher Street and Seventh Avenue South) to either protest or celebrate the decision and continue to call for the New York State Senate to pass marriage equality before the end of this legislative session in June. We will meet at Sheridan Square and march to southern steps of Union Square for a rally. We will stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in California and continue to draw attention to the fact that marriage equality should be passed in the Empire State.”

    Other websites are reporting the same thing…. if you have information dated for May 20th that shows it is not happening tomorrow, please let me and others know about it:) thanks

  26. davidmac2003 May 21, 2009 at 1:58 am #

    That I posted above.  The Court always advises one day ahead of time before posting an opinion.
    “Forthcoming Opinions” section.

  27. todd May 21, 2009 at 2:27 am #

    they aren’t releasing a decision tomorrow. check their website. dur

  28. Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    Blue Hamsters share your frustration, but should not share your apparent pessimism. NH has a citizen legislature, as you may have heard, and it looks to me like this case was both a proxy for equality and a ote for better language. We lost by two votes out of about 375; one (presumably) was Steve Vaillancourt, whom you may hae noticed is a strong supporter of marriage equality. I remain hopeful that we can get equality done in this state, this session.

    Also, though I am a strong supporter of equality, we do have civil unions which are equivalent to marriage in all but name, which I am willing to admit is the more important victory in policy terms. If we don’t get it done now, yes, disappointment, sadness…but we will have full equality in New Hampshire soon regardless.

  29. gaydg May 21, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    you are correct… however, they were going to give decision tomorrow but it has been cancelled because of Gavin Newsom asked to have it cancelled because of white nights riots anniversary….. most rulings are given on monday or thursday so likely a ruling will be given before June 1st deadline….. thanks…. i’m glad i looked it up.

  30. FrankLloydMike May 21, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    It’s made up inordinately of independently wealthy retirees. It’s shameful of supporters to have voted this down in order to debate language, if that is the case. We are so close; I hope this does not mean that we were so close.

  31. jimmyQ May 21, 2009 at 2:33 am #

    I’m very impatient and I’m very tired. Was really not thinking this would be much of a brainer. As usual, religion gets priority and I’m so sick of it. They already have tax-exemption status, you can’t park in front of churches in NYC (sure it’s similar elsewhere in other cities) and now we have make ABSOLUTELY sure they and everyone associated with them retain their rights to turn away two loving people who just want to fucking marry. And just because I live in NYC don’t dare think that this city doesn’t have its fair share of homophobic bigots, namely lots of ethnic Catholics in Queens, Bronx and Staten Island. In fact, two state senators who might just be the death blow to passing gay marriage here come from the Bronx and from Queens, both part of NYC. So please refrain from patronizing “your NYC residency is showing” comments when the fundamental issue here is not where one is from.

    Considering this hasn’t made the front page of the major lib blogs (DailyKos, MyDD, TPM, etc.) at this point you are probably right that this is far from over. It just sucks to have to wait.

  32. Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    there are problems with the Legislature, certainly. In this case I just meant that Representatives, in particular, are subject to a wide array of pressures and curious circumstances—it’s an unbelievably heterogeneous body, and votes can swing a lot. Indeed, on this vote that is clearly important, only 374 out of the nominal 400 voted: I’m sure some seats are empty, but I’m also sure some reps just weren’t present, etc.

    I find myself wondering how often some one rep out of those nearly 400 accidentally votes incorrectly…surely it must happen occasionally, and with 400 seats, it could easily affect a close vote!

  33. FrankLloydMike May 21, 2009 at 2:47 am #

    if I sounded snappy in my response. Obviously, not at what you were trying to say, just at this situation. You’re right in what you just said, and I think if there were a little more accurately representative of the people of the state, this whole thing would have passed much more easily.

  34. Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:48 am #

    It seems to me that a more reasonable response is awareness of the state of the process in NH. The NYC comment was mostly along the lines of “don’t lose your sanity over what’s happening in another state,” especially one that’s moved so far so fast as NH—this state went Bush in 2000, remember? When Democrats took over in the Legislature for the first time in decades in 2006, we got civil unions right away.  

  35. Mormo May 21, 2009 at 2:59 am #

    I also apologize for any snappishness. There was a small eruption of worrying about the world ending that got me a little cranky. I’m choosing to

    (a) remain hopeful about the conference language;
    (b) remember that we’re moving in the right direction, and at the forefront: it’s pretty clear we can’t, politically speaking, move faster than we are—we don’t have the votes; and
    (c) remind myself that we do have marriage-equivalent civil unions. Cold comfort, but much warmer than just…losing….

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb