These aren't "pro-traditional marriage" people." If they were, they'd be trying to pass legislation to outlaw divorce, and deny marriage to others that don't procreate.
Patch should call them what they are. Bigots.
They are using the same arguments that people used 50 years ago to argue that inter-racial marriages should remain illegal. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

What exactly is the definition of a "traditional" marriage? Do sham marriages like Kim Kardashian's 30 day marriage count? What a joke. Who really cares about this?

Oh I just wish we as a state and a country could focus on things that would improve life for all of us. We can worry about social issues once everyone has a job, a roof over their head, food to eat and access to medical care!

Intolerence is hate.

This is a representative of windham? Really??? I think we really need to pay attention to the next election. Personally, not who I want for my voice.

"They don't like gay love because it's not what they do and it's not what their neighbors do and therefore it must be evil and wrong and bizarre, and, being Americans, if we don't understand something we either kill it or ban it or poison it or vote against it about 1,000 times until we exhaust every possible angle of idiocy. And then last thing we do, the very last thing of all, is to finally, reluctantly, nervously welcome it in. A change finally happens, a switch is thrown, a new generation sweeps in and wonders what the hell the big deal was in the first place, and we wake up to a world that says: Wow, I guess that wasn't so bad after all. We should've allowed that gay marriage thing a lot sooner."
-- Mark Morford, SF Gate

America's own Taliban, hard at work.

Oh Please...

This was really a political rally, meant to do what rallies do to, bring more money and votes to the politicians. In this case, instead of pulling our state forward - they're enshrining hatred.

Oh PALEEEEZ. I have been married for 16 years and I know what marriage is. LOVE, RESPECT & KINDNESS makes a marriage. I'm pretty positive NH doesn't need another jackass defining someone else's life, try getting one of your own and solving the real problems, of which YOU are one of them.

Most of the above comments are knee jerk reactions to a legitimate and grounded point of view about a sacred tradition that has served humanity well for thousands of years. Calling folks with a different point of view haters and bigots only builds resentment in your own life. It's good for both sides and the middle to consider others' ideas and convictions, always with open mind. Peace!

This may not be hate or bigotry but it is intolerance. Rep. Bates considers himself a christian, but if he were a christian, in the true sense of the word, he would be more tolerant of the differences in others. Christian is Christ-like, so it begs the question, what would Jesus do? It is time for the Republican leadership to do what they were sent to Concord to do. The state budget is not balanced, the only tax that was repealed was the ciggarette tax, which cost 13 million in revenue so far, while cigarrette prices rose 9 cent per pack, to line the pockets of big tobacco. Funding cut to the University system by 50%, this affects the ability to grow new business. Repeal of minimum wage, and now a bill to eliminate workers compensation. Time to do your job or the voters will send you home in November.

Why doesn't our State Reps use their time and energy to solve REAL problems. Since Rep. Bates is from Windham, he likely does not realize that the rest of the State is in an economic crisis.

Knee jerks again? I never said I didn't consider others' views that differ from mine on the subject. I know there have been various arrangements throughout history. My point is a mother and father bound in love is ideal for raising children in my view. I understand others may differ and I'm okay with it. Where the heck did inter-racial come into play? Last I checked one man one woman is about sex, not race. Why obfuscate? Again, I appreciate and respect many points of view on the subject. All I ask is that others extend the same respect to those of us on the "traditional" side of the issue. Thanks for your responses. Time to go to work! :-)

If the definition of marriage in today's society goes against the very word of God then we should not call it marriage regardless of which sexes are involved. Let's call it what is really is... legal civil union. You can have your equality and all of the legal rights but don't call it marriage. This is blasphemy and is a sin.

Chuck Sink, marriage of one man and one woman is about sex? Really? No wonder divorce is above 50% in traditional marriage. I thought marriage was about love, respect, and committment. You may be right about the best environment to raise children is with their mother and father but that is not the case in many situations. I can counter that what a child needs is a stable home, nurturing, and love. This can come from a single parent, gay or lesbian couple or biological parents. I respect other points of view here, I don't accept taking rights away from others though. This is not American or the NH way. The state needs to stay out of our bedrooms

@Edward Dunsel, Everyone counts and everyone has rights under the "law." I never said that same sex marriage should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be termed "marriage." God defined marriage in the Bible long before any of our lawmakers got involved. I'm not trying to say we should take rights away from anyone, and I am certainly in no position to judge. God and only God will do that. We are all sinners, it is our human nature, yet we are not all criminals under the law. Blasphemy is a sin, not a crime. I think you are confusing the two. There is only one Word of God, and only one God. The best thing that can be done for those who don't recognize this is to pray for them, just as we should pray for all lawmakers. God help us all.

Oh for pete's sake. As far as the state is concerned "marriage" is about taxes. We keep bringing our emotions and our personal religious beliefs into a discussion that is really about money. I think they should change the laws to show that what we are calling marriage is really a civil union for all. The challenge then is why limit it to 2 people? Why not allow polygomy? Then i can decide what i want to call it in my house. We should charge a nice tax on anyone that wishes to disolve their civil union, an even bigger tax if there are kids involved.

The polygamy question is one often raised by gay marriage opponents. The answer is easy. Marriage --or whatever legal union between two people we're talking about -- creates certain legal rights. Things like inheritance, decision-making, child-raising in the event of death (think "next of kin" situations). Someone married to multiple people who may also be married to multiple people creates a legal mess that the government should be free to prevent. Who inherits? Who gets the Social Security survivor benefits? A union with one person does not create that mess.

Your last point about charging people is at least consistent with "defending marriage."

It's encouraging to see so many people understand that it's wrong to make any minority into second-class citizens.

To everyone that thinks the term "marriage" is special - too special for gays - you clearly DO believe that glbt people just aren't quite as deserving. As for the religious argument; it's crap. Non-Christian hetero couples are still issued "marriage" licenses. The child-raising argument is crap, too, because many hetero couples don't have or want kids - they get "marriage" licenses just the same.
Lets move on.

@ForThePeople, I do not lay claim to the institution of marriage. Nor am I disenfranchising anyone. The Bible teaches to treat others as we wish to be treated. We are all human. In what way would I be considered an oppressor if I am recognizing individual rights? I respect that others have their personal beliefs, just like I have mine. Again, what I am saying here is that a legal civil union can have and should have all of the rights that a legal marriage has, if that's what everyone wants, but that there should be a clear understanding that this union is not recognized by God (not my words, His), yet is recognized by the state. There is no such thing as a TRUE Christian "institution" that recognizes same sex marriage. Read the Bible. If anything, modern society has "hijacked" the institution of marriage from God and manipulated it into what it finds suitable, much in the same way that many churches spread false doctrine by twisting the Word of God into something that everyone wants to hear in an effort to achieve political correctness. May God have mercy on all of us.

Robert, The term sex is a noun as I use it, not a verb. Perhaps "gender" would have made you understand my point which you clearly did not. Sex, however was the correct term. Gender is a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).

@Mike..
And the answer to that extreme test would be similar. There are numerous reasons having to do with the legal relationship a marriage creates that make marrying an animal something the government can reasonably prohibit. Oh yeah, there's the health issues too. Other examples include children and incest. The answer to those "slippery slope" arguments are that society has recognized that until a cetain age, children are not capable of making an intelligent decision to do many things and need to be protected. And incest (let's say among adults, to keep it separate from chidlren) has health risks. That's why beyond a certain level (4th cousins for example, but I dont know for sure) relatives CAN marry.

But with same-sex(or gender) marriage, the ONLY argument against it is that "MY" religion says its bad. That's just fundamentally at odds with the way this country was founded and how it works.

Ed - I appreciate the non-emotional response but I disagree with your premise - your bringing sex into the picture - I simply love my dog, I didn't say I was planning to mate with it. That would be as futile as same gender sex now wouldn't it? You're also bringing in other slippery slope items but am still not hearing why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my dog. "MY" religion doesn't prevent it, why should society - I can play back your line about what the country was founded on too .....

BTW - I realize my position is ridiculous but it has all the merits of the same gender marriage argument and I can play back all the nonsensical defenses too (you're a hater/bigot, it's about freedom, it's your religion that make you disagree, etc. etc.)

OK - so it's not about love, sex, or even equality - so if I agree that gays should have Civil Unions then you should be happy - right? That would address that 'ton of legal rights and responsibilities' and we don't need to call it a marriage so I don't have to be offended that my marriage is treated the same as something I find offensive (not because I hate but because I find same gender sex as offensive as most may find man/beast sex). I am entitled to my opinion on that I would argue without being called names.

First of all, it IS about equality. Separate BUT equal is not the same as equal when the separation is effectively a pronouncement of second-class-ness.

Your offense to the use of the word "marriage" in this way is irrelevant. The question is, "Do you support a law making it illegal for two people of the same gender to marry?"
Your answer is "yes, because it is offensive to me to use the word "marriage" in this way." Mine is "There is simply no basis for the government to discriminate in this way."
So, I suppose if governments did not call anything "marriage" anymore, and that all betrothals between two consensting adults were called "civil unions," that would be non-discriminatory. ("We just wont have water fountains for anyone!"). But then you would no longer be "married," which I assume is not an outcome you want.

I do not care about your motives, whether they stem from bigotry, religion or linguistics. This is not about your opinion. This is about a law that seems like discrimination without any valid basis.

I guess we're going to agree to disagree on this - first because I think you're applying a non-objective value judgement on a civil union - if it grants equal rights it IS equal. The gay movement is seeking to re-define the term marriage, let's not forget it had a definition that worked quite well for some time. Second, yes I do support a law making any unnatural act illegal - either a man marrying another man or me marrying my dog. From a purely objective view these 2 unions are just as valid and I could argue should be treated as equal. The valid basis for passing laws to prevent this is: the proliferation of unnatural or immoral behavior leads to the decline of our civilization as a whole. I believe the Roman empire was a good model for proving this point. By calling a gay union a marriage we are only legitimizing an unnatural union, something I have no incentive to do.

You wrote:
1."if it grants equal rights it IS equal"
That's what they said about water fountains, bathrooms, schools and lunch counters in 1950.

2."Second, yes I do support a law making any unnatural act illegal - either a man marrying another man or me marrying my dog. From a purely objective view these 2 unions are just as valid and I could argue should be treated as equal."

'Purely objective' my foot. If you really think that a man seeking to marry a man is the same as someone seeking to marry a dog, then I hope you become the 24/7 spokesman for the discriminators and get to shout this view from the highest rooftops. That will ensure that you and the other "guardians of traditions" will be exposed for the religious/moral scolds you are, and let you all rejoice together on the wrong side of history. Orval Faubus, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell will provide the snacks.

Last word (from me). Traditions are good, moral decay is bad. Don't ask me to embrace and support behavior that by definition is unnatural and by opinion is immoral. Aligning with the civil rights movement is a stretch - only common ground is the desire for social acceptance - non-whites deserved it, gays can only hope for tolerance (there is no right to social acceptance of marriage between men and men any more that there should be a right for me to marry my dog). Peace out. Mike and Fido.

Yawn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CbmbdWK6338

Tell this women that her daughter is a second class citizen? I think not. We need people at OUR statehouse like her. Not the intolerant zealots we are stuck with now.

Most people can't change their minds about this, Tom. After somebody invests themselves in their own bigotry day after day, month after month, year after year, it's almost impossible to undo because to admit they were wrong would make all of those years of hatred feel meaningless. It's hard for people to admit they made a mistake and that they are sorry. No, rather than be an adult about it they will double down on their discrimination and call it god, hiding behind the Constitution for their right to oppress other people.

What we have to do is just continue to point it out for what it is and let the young folks grow up. As soon as they do, this kind of behavior will surely fade away and we will have much more contemporary politicians. That's what happened with civil rights both times; progress is always slightly behind. What you see now is the last vestiges of discrimination against people who are gay.

The consummate example of the Infiltration of our elected officials by Right Wing Religious Taliban. This guy will be gone in November. Remember, you heard it here first.
Vote this clown out!!!!