Tweet
Update: Dean Barker, an actual New Hampshire resident, has posted his take on the town meeting votes. Click over to Blue Hampshire and have a read. In an email, he reminded me that “the two anti-marriage bills went down in flames [in the legislature] on 2/17″. (my diary on that here) I think this is a good point – it makes me wonder if some pro-equality supporters felt they could sit out the warrant vote because the imminent legislative threat was over.
Over 130 New Hampshire towns had their annual Town Meeting Tuesday. Town Meeting is an exercise in direct democracy, where voters act as citizen-legislators and vote on everything from the town budget to the location of a new stop sign. This year, most towns also voted on a non-binding resolution, called a “warrant”, that asks their state legislators to put the state’s constitutional definition of marriage on the statewide ballot.
News is still trickling in, but of the 50 or so towns we do have results for, the vast majority have voted for the anti-equality warrant, often by overwhelming margins.
Before Town Meeting, the Union Leader had characterized the state’s mood as “sour” due to budgetary concerns. Common wisdom today is that only the conservatives and the cranks turn out to vote at such times, and that explains the anti-gay vote on the warrant. I’m not so sure I’d want to find solace in such an explanation, as it implies that there is nothing you can put on the ballot, be it anti-gay bigotry or budgetary reality, that can induce non-conservatives and pro-equality voters to get off their sofas. It raises the uncomfortable question, if there is truly a majority of pro-equality voters, why aren’t they angry enough about the existence of anti-gay warrants to show up and vote?New Hampshire has just become the umpteenth state to prove that its electorate is in no way exceptional, that anti-gay animus is still the rule. As we well know, every state that has put the definition of marriage up for popular vote, whether on a statewide ballot or town warrants, has voted to keep legal marriage the special right of heterosexuals.
Jon Greenberg from New Hampshire Public Radio summed up the New Hampshire situation nicely:
By itself, this [warrant] has no legal force. Only lawmakers in Concord have the power to put such a question on a statewide ballot. Passage or rejection [of the warrant] in any town would be expressions of voter sentiment.What we have here is the difference between direct and representative democracy. At the town level, with a few exceptions, citizens have direct control over many governmental decisions. That includes the ability to put an item to a popular vote. At the state level, it’s up to lawmakers.
Putting the definition of marriage on a town warrant is an effort to use a tool of direct democracy to leverage change in a system that runs according to the rules of representative democracy.
Thank heavens for our state and federal constitutions, which were crafted to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Thank heavens for the courts in place to defend those constitutions through honest interpretation. And thank heavens for the system of representative democracy at the state and federal levels, intended to buffer the more outrageous passions of the electorate.
Related:
25 Comments
We can’t get Gay America off their sofas…….“I’m not so sure I’d want to find solace in such an explanation, as it implies that there is nothing you can put on the ballot, be it anti-gay bigotry or budgetary reality, that can induce non-conservatives and pro-equality voters to get off their sofas. It raises the uncomfortable question, if there is truly a majority of pro-equality voters, why aren’t they angry enough about the existence of anti-gay warrants to show up and vote?”
The loudest folks are awarded the power to craft change. They don’t represent the majority of people in the country. The majority of Americans are indifferent to the process including the gay community.In contrast we have supermajority polling support on all of our issues. How is that possible? Because we let it. We have to begin to discuss the issues, start making some people uncomfortable and challenge this disturbing trend. It’s only getting worse. Time for our community to step up and act out!!We have the public’s support, just not their votes.
our allies need to be better-motivated alsowe LGBT people absolutely need to take the most responsibility for our futures, but i also have been told too many times by allies that “you gays have a lot of work to do”. this to me indicates that not enough of our allies understand that being an ally means acting like one. the actions of clergy and council members in washington dc demonstrates so beautifully what is possible when allies step forward and talk to their heterosexual peers and give us a numerical advantage we, as a tiny minority, can never have on our own. i’m not trying to pass along any blame, just stating what i see as fact: gays can’t do this alone, even if every one of us was a political junkie.
it is clear that allies in some new hampshire towns really did show up, and this is excellent news. but obviously we need them to multiply themselves and keep the pressure on.
Our supporters are unawareLGBT supporters think there’s no need to go to the polls, no one would vote against someone’s rights. Seriously, this happens more often than not. While the conservatives are jonesing to squash some rights, my friends and even family members are in total denial of what’s going on.
Well…
Well, maybe some of them are trans and are sick of expending energy on gay marriage when they know that those who benefit from gay marriage have, under the New Hampshire legal status quo, the legal right to discriminate against trans people.
A populist message always winswhich is why the opposition is framing this issue in terms of voter’s rights (“Let NH vote!”). if I recall, there was a poll in Connecticut in which most respondents wanted to vote on the issue of marriage, yet favored the State Supreme Court’s decision.
I want to write something so snarky!
HmmThe warrant article never made it to our ballot so most of the people at the local diner this morning didn’t count but there were a few from Pelham and Windham, both towns supporting the warrant article by a heavy margin. However, a breakfast diner is probably the wrong place to go to find people who support gay marriage. Most of the of the people there, whom I know, are vehemently anti gay. They watch Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox and to a one are mostly Republicans with some claiming to be Tea bagers. The people there who support gay marriage mostly are young or very passive types that wouldn’t be caught dead in any situation where they would have to argue with anyone.
The ones who support gay rights arn’t gay themselves so the vote doesn’t directly affect them and they react to an election with the same gusto as if they were filling out a supermarket questionaire. What I saw this morning were gay rights supporters who were afraid of being confronted by the “macho” crowd and afraid to voice their opinions. The agressive gay haters feel that just having a gay person in town is a personal afront and where they fired up this morning. I don’t know what the answer is.
Hey, it doesn’t affect them.Well, indirectly it does, but our rights don’t raise a blip on their radars (sorry realize this is a generalization, but it’s my experience here in gay friendly entertainment industry worker California).
I won’t be surprised if another state bites the dust and rolls back equality.
andwho can be against “voting”. I will bet a weeks pay the whole idea was thought up by a Republican think tank somewhere.
I have to keep repeating……we will never get our rights through legislation or through votes. WE NEED TO KEEP SUING THROUGH THE COURTS FOR OUR FEDERAL RIGHTS. Stop trying to swim against the tide people.
You’re right I’m afraidLook at mixed race marriage – It would never have been approved by vote. At the time of the Supreme Court case, polls showed 85% against
Just more proof the Educational SystemIn this country SUCKS. Loving vs. Virginia was decided in the 60s, not even 50 years ago, and history can’t be taught.
I am willing to bet most mixed race couples have no idea what Loving vs. Virginia is, most would probably say a book or movie. Brown vs The Board of Education, is that a Simpson episode?
Get ready for more Flat Earthers, because when it comes to education, this country is lacking by a long shot.
Simply Outrageous!I find it laughable that the “Live Free or Die!” state can actually be moving towards putting a clause that says “…except the gays” into their constitution.
The link you have on this article leads to a haters website that is taking comments. So far mine is the lone dissenting opinion on their hatefest. Anyone care to join me?
From my legally married husbandRaymond has a valid question I am throwing out there for consideration: what percentage of the population just voted?
I see Salem, Manchester, Concord, Nashua, Portsmouth, and Laconia all missing from the list. In a state with a current population of only 1.3 million people the everywhere there is a large concentration of people you find no vote. I’d wager that more than half the population isn’t even represented on their vote.
If you poll only twelve people who all agree do you then say that 100% of the people of NH agree?
some heavy knuckle dragging over there
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that Carl’s personal motto is something like “Heteros live free or queers die”.
And as always, the stoopid is impressive:
Some town meetings are this weekend, March 13thso you’re right that not all of the big towns have weighed in and therefore what we have now is a view of the electorate skewed towards rural and smaller towns. I hope that the big towns/cities put the rest of the state to shame this weekend by shutting out the warrant with resounding “no” votes. I would gladly eat crow if it turns out that I wrote this diary prematurely.
Do you have a list of the towns?It would be great to see if some of these towns simply did not vote on our equality.
what townsSalemMAman, check out Lurleen’s earlier post here on PHB.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…
towns voting on the anti-equality warrantare listed at the website of the warrant sponsors. if you look at the map above, the towns in green are the ones voting on the warrant or some form of it (some towns defanged it during their deliberative session). you can read up here on some of the towns that killed the amendment by amending it into meaninglessness. Sadly, the Londonderry council pulled an ugly switcheroo and ended up putting the warrant on the town ballot. It passed.
Dean Barker at Blue Hampshireweighs in: http://www.bluehampshire.com/d…
What a steaming load of crap!
New Hampshire’s gay-only rights law is indeed a steaming load of crap.
HERE IS WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW1. The 2 or 3 news articles that have been published today and yesterday are not correct. They have not been counting towns that voted against the article by “passing over” it without debate. My own town of Brookline did this last night by a 3-1 vote. Also, more than a dozen towns defeated it earlier in deliberative sessions.
2. In New Hamsphire, a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 super majority of the voters. Results are still coming in, but by my count about 45 towns have voted against the article, 28 voted for it by a simple majority, but not a 2/3 majority and 22 voted for it by a 2/3 majority. Had this been an actual constitutional amendment, it would be going down in flames.
3. Only smaller, rural, more conservative towns are voting on this. The larger, more liberal cities are not voting on it.
4. At the town meetings, supporters of the article are saying that they want the legislature to pass 2 constitutional amendments – one banning gay marriage and the other requiring gay marriage. That way the people can vote on the one that they want. They are arguing that this article is neither supporting nor opposing marriage equality, but is only about having a public vote on the issue. There have been several newspaper stories interviewing people who support marriage equality but are voting “yes” on this article because they want the chance to prove that the voters support equality.
In conclusion, these results are WAY over inflating our opposition’s support and despite that they are still proving that there is no way that a constitional amendment would pass.
Correction!I meant to say that about 35 towns voted against the article, not 45.
True. Trans folk saw defeat of the human rights bill over there . . .. . . at about the same time that marriage equality passed. That doesn’t mean that trans people oppose marriage equality – since it does affect us just as much as it affects anyone else.
For us, marriage equality settles uncertainty. In most states, the fact that we might get a marriage license is no guarantee that our marriage will be recognized, even in the state where the license was issued, regardless of whether one of us were to marry a man or a woman. Perhaps the only marriages in which a trans individual might have certainty in states without marriage equality, is a marriage to another trans individual of similar op status but opposite initial assignment.