04 June 2009

Gay marriage now legal in New Hampshire

Apparently the governor of the state "personally opposes gay marriage," but (like most thoughtful religionists [1]) he figured that nobody was trying to force his church to recognize marriages that his church doesn't like. So he signed the bill into law once the legislature made that clear in the bill:
Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.
Whoa-whoa-whoa, wait a minute: 198 to 176? Exactly how many people in New Hampshire aren't in that state's House of Representatives?! Wikipedia tells me 400 representatives, serving a state of about 1.3 million people. The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 voting members representing 306.5 million people. So if the U.S. House had as many members, proportionally, as New Hampshire's does, it would number about 100,000. There must be a happy medium. Oh, wait. Here's a mention of the state Senate:
[T]he Senate . . . approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.
Uh, I guess that balances it, having 24 Senators for all 1.3 million people? State governments are weird.

News via Mithras.


[1] Cue LBBastard telling me that thoughtful religionist is an oxymoron in 3, 2, . . .

2 comments:

Oskar Kennedy (LBB) said...

I don't think a "thoughtful religionist" is an oxymoron, necessarily. Apologists can be quite thoughtful about a lot of things. As an example, the most popular biology textbook in America was written by Ken Miller, a prominent defender of evolution and Catholicism. He's extremely smart and insightful, except for the massive blind spot in his critical faculties.

Frankly, I'm not unhappy with the wording of the NH bill, or the governor's response. Why should we force the churches to be less bigoted? If they refuse to hold gay marriage ceremonies, that's fine with me. Let them stay as out of touch with the wider culture as they want to be. As long as the government is recognizing the equality of rights, let the churches alienate as many segments of the population as they want.

Glomarization said...

I confess I didn't even read the text of the bill. I've been trying to memorize "hearsay exception" versus "not hearsay" for the bar exam. Since the end result is "admissible," it's the kind of thing that my brain does not find it very compelling to learn.

However, the bar exam usually tests why something is admissible, so the distinction, while not a difference, is important. For the next 2 months.