RECENT  POSTS:  » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too » FRC prays to take LGBT Americans out of nondiscrimination law » In lieu of typing 'Look how desperate we are' over and over again, NOM president wrote this instead » I'll remind you that FRC also compared our marriages to human-horse unions  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/21/2009

Pro-gay Republican: Gov. Lynch allowing wound to fester

by Jeremy Hooper

Yesterday, amidst coverage of the House vote that went against Gov. Lynch's changes to the New 200905211143-1Hampshire marriage bill, we showed you a comment from Republican Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, wherein the local lawmaker told why Lynch's new religious language would lead him, a marriage supporter, to switch his vote to a "nay." Now in a comment that he's given to us exclusively, Rep. Vaillancourt shed even more graphic insight as to why he and some of his colleagues fulfilled their promise:

Anything I say is on record
...
The media which claims the governor has sent this bill back to the House is simply misstating the procedures we use. The governor cannot send anything which has passed the House and Senate and been enrolled back. What he's attempting to do is shred our Constitution and bully legislators by insisting that unless they come up with another piece of legislation he will veto what must come to his desk. That last phrase is the siginficant one--even if nothing else happens, what we have done must go to his desk. As I've said in numerous posts and op-ed pieces, he should sign what we've already sent him. By refusing to do that he is simply picking at a scab, allowing a wound which should heal to fester and puss to ooze out.
Is that graphic enough.

Peace, steve v

Puss? ooze? Yuck, we're eating!

But there ya have it. Some of you will surely disagree with Rep. Vailliancourt, thinking he should have played along and adopted the new language even if he disagreed with it (as many gay people were willing to do). Others will commend him for standing up for his strong belief in proper procedure, even if it means delaying freedom. And still others of you couldn't care less about any of this, as you are in mourning over Adam Lambert's loss. We all have our own perspectives.

As for this site? Well we have been staunch in our opposition towards the new and unnecessary religious language (which even the opposition doesn't like), even if we were tentatively willing to play along the same way we do when it comes to other faith matters that encroach into civil life. But since the House vote failed yesterday, we have been equally staunch in directing the focus not the House members, but rather to the root of the failure: Gov. Lynch's demanded protections. So if Rep. Vailliancourt is right about the procedural issues (we're verifying), then that only adds to our frustrations. And if verified, we join him in calling on Gov. Lynch to sign the original bill as it hits his desk, rather than to force any more legislative wrangling on this matter. Justice delayed = Justice denied.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

My understanding from reading on Bluehampshire and other sites is that the original bill has never made it to Lynch's desk, as the NH Congress has been holding the bill to let the other bill with Lynch's requested language to pass. This is claimed to be not illegal or unusual, though it may certainly be deemed unethical.

I'd be curious to know if this isn't the case. But if I'm correct, then the NH legislature has been acting in collusion with Gov. Lynch, and Steve's objections remain partisan political in nature.

Posted by: Bruno | May 21, 2009 2:05:42 PM

This might be partisan in nature, but it also resembles pretty typical friction between the legislative and executive branches. If its the later, I just wish they chose another piece of legislature to have the argument over.

Posted by: DanM | May 21, 2009 5:41:18 PM

I wish that Steve had chosen a different course to try and rid New Hampshire politics of what he considers to be...ooze. How about introducing a bill that streamlines the process of taking legislation to the governor's office in a timely fashion? Vermont had their bill on Governor Douglas' desk in minutes it seemed. There were so many other ways to go about this rather than putting the marriage bill in jeopardy.

Posted by: Bruno | May 21, 2009 10:05:39 PM

This Governor is a little whimp! He should have stood his ground from the beginning!

Posted by: Wayne | May 23, 2009 2:12:40 AM

Adam and Eve, not adam and steve.

Posted by: Wheel Bearing | Jul 9, 2009 12:28:32 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails