Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Maine State Senate just approved a gay marriage bill, and it appears that it's likely to be approved by the Maine House.
It would seem to be following pretty much the same track as the bill in New Hampshire ... approved by the legislature and sent to the Governor ... and no one knows what he'll do with it.
The Maine State Senate just approved a gay marriage bill, and it appears that it's likely to be approved by the Maine House.
It would seem to be following pretty much the same track as the bill in New Hampshire ... approved by the legislature and sent to the Governor ... and no one knows what he'll do with it.
I think most states will allow same sex thing because it all boils down to voters and each governor is getting something out of it money wise. If nothing was in it for them not 1 state would have approved it.
I think most states will allow same sex thing because it all boils down to voters and each governor is getting something out of it money wise. If nothing was in it for them not 1 state would have approved it.
Actually, this might be the one and only case where pols are NOT doing it for the money. I think it's pure fear. They're a bunch of cowards and afraid of being called homophobes or whatever. It's sad really.
If two people want to pledge themselves to each other, regardless of sexual orientation, and desire a state sactioned marrage, I have no objection and wish them the best. What they do with each other is none of my business. "Live Free or Die"
How about a 47 year old man and an 11 year old boy?
How about two sisters? A brother and sister? A father and daughter?
Why limit it to two people; how about three men?
Why not one man and 17 women?
How about a 47 year old man and an 11 year old boy?
How about two sisters? A brother and sister? A father and daughter?
Why limit it to two people; how about three men?
Why not one man and 17 women?
Hey, if that's what New Hampshire wants ... personally, I think that would be taking the "live free or die" thing a bit too far.
However, as is often the case, reading the bill is a good idea.
"457:1 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to affirm the right of 2 individuals desiring to marry and who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of this chapter to have their marriage solemnized in a religious or civil ceremony in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
"457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void."
(The highlighting in the passage above is the way it appears in the bill itself. I'm guessing that the legislators wanted to reassure New Hampshire's heterosexuals that they may continue as desired to "rob the cradle", but that gays may not do so.)
The bill goes on to say that although same sex marriages may be performed in churches ....
"457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution."
Hey, if that's what New Hampshire wants ... personally, I think that would be taking the "live free or die" thing a bit too far.
However, as is often the case, reading the bill is a good idea.
"457:1 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to affirm the right of 2 individuals desiring to marry and who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of this chapter to have their marriage solemnized in a religious or civil ceremony in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
"457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void."
(The highlighting in the passage above is the way it appears in the bill itself. I'm guessing that the legislators wanted to reassure New Hampshire's heterosexuals that they may continue as desired to "rob the cradle", but that gays may not do so.)
The bill goes on to say that although same sex marriages may be performed in churches ....
"457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution."
457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [i][b]No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.
Why the prohibitions? if it is good for one alternative group, then why not all. If I decided that your ten year old daughter looked like a good deal why shouldn't she be able to consent.. why is the goverment forcing it's morality on her and me..it ain't fair!
If my daughter wants to be daddys main squeeze, who are you to judge us?
Oh wait you do already, tahts why we have these laws, thats why we had laws that said no to gay marriage..until we as a society got stupid..then we will wonder years from now how it is we have fallen so far when kids are legally engaged in same sex encounters protected by "civil" rights. Slow and steady is how erosion occurs.
"457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [i][b]No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.
Why the prohibitions? if it is good for one alternative group, then why not all.
Actually, prohibitions on who may marry who in New Hampshire are nothing new. The existing law includes this:
"457:4 Marriageable. – No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void."
I assume that when the NH state legislature put together the gay marriage bill, they felt a need to state that both parties entering into such a marriage be "of age" (i.e., at least 18). But they kept the existing language (and age requirement, such as it is) in place for heterosexual couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDave
If my daughter wants to be daddys main squeeze, who are you to judge us?
Oh wait you do already, tahts why we have these laws, thats why we had laws that said no to gay marriage..until we as a society got stupid..then we will wonder years from now how it is we have fallen so far when kids are legally engaged in same sex encounters protected by "civil" rights. Slow and steady is how erosion occurs.
And that same law that said no to gay marriage also said yes to an old (but straight) geezer marrying a 13-year-old girl, something that the new law would continue to protect. Well, at least that's one right that isn't eroding, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
