House Vote Means Gay Marriage Is Here To Stay

Even as Republican Rep. Nancy Elliott’s offensive and irrelevant comments describing gay sex in detail were getting tens of thousands of hits worldwide, the New Hampshire House not only defeated two anti-gay measures Wednesday but did so by such a wide margin that they are not likely to resurface even if Republicans gain 50-75 seats and were to control next year’s House by a margin as great as 250-150 (the number same sex marriage sponsor Rep Jim Splaine of Portsmouth has in fact predicted).

First to the Elliott comments.  The story has been played widely in the Nashua Telegraph (including today’s editorial), and rightly so since her comment during the Judiciary Committee Executive Session on the bill was that a fifth grade teacher in Nashua was showing students how to perform certain acts indulged in by homosexuals.

Hey, we’re not prudes here!

 The comments are readily available on You Tube, and just because the Union Leader refuses to get into a real story, we on Redhampshire should not ignore this episode. 

I like Nancy Elliott; I attend many House Republican Alliance meetings which she co-chairs; I agree with her on almost all fiscal issues; I consider her a hard-working advocate for her causes. 

I was deeply offended by her description of gay sex involving one man’s penis wiggling around in the excrement of another man’s rectum (her words, not mine).  I actually was in the room when she said it, and I experienced three reactions (other than nausea).  First, this play by play description has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage and equality for all.

 Secondly, she’s only hurting her own cause, probably fatally, by indulding in such commentary.

 Finally, heterosexuals-a small percentage to be sure- are also known to indulge in anal sex (in the John Irving novels I’ve read, it’s heterosexuals, not homosexuals going anal; and then there’s the famous admonition from the prostitute, “I don’t do anal!”).

So, yes I was appalled and offended by Rep. Elliott’s comments, but I was also the first to respond to a lengthy email to all State Reps calling for her censure.   I do not believe she should be censured for exercising her free speech (as much as I disagree with it).

As I say, it’s out there on You Tube, and you might be especially interested in the reactions of the two Democratic Reps who flanked Rep. Elliott when she made the comments (Lucy Weber of Walpole and Paul Hackel of Nashua).

That’s the lurid part, but an analysis of the House votes is far more important for those on either side of the gay marriage divide.

When gay marriage passed a year ago, less than a dozen Republicans joined me in supporting the hallmark legislation, one of the proudest moments of my life as a libertarian-minded Republican.

This week, 39 Republicans voted against HB1590 for repeal. With 105 Republicans for repeal, the percentage breakdown is 73-27.  Democrats were 171-4 against repeal (98 percent).  Interestingly three of the four anti-gay marriage Democrats were from Manchester:  Ron Boisvert, Bob Haley, and Maurice Pilotte, and according to my early predictions, all three are in danger of being unseated come this November.  The fourth anti-gay Democrat, Bill Butynski of Hinsdale, is likely to be re-elected unless enough progressive Cheshire County Dems get together to oust him in a primary (he’s also extremely anti-choice).

Even though nearly 80 Reps were absent (the vote came at 5:25 p.m.), the margin of 210-109 tells us that a repeal move is not likely to succeed in the near future.  Republicans against the repeal were more than the usual suspects; more than Libertarians like me dedicated to equal protection under the law; more than the so-called RINOs (how they hate that term).

A dozen moderate Republicans and about ten what I would term real conservatives, including some HRA members, voted no on repeal (to name names-Haefner, Hinkle, Pepino, Bob Elliott, David Welch, both Scammans, Jasper, Reagan, and Bettencourt–the last three of whom are all in Sherm Packard’s GOP leadership team).

Try this exercise.  Let’s say Republicans were to dominate next year’s House 250-150.  Applying the same percentages, 98 percent Democrats against repeal and 27 percent Republicans, you’d get 215 against repeal, 68 Republicans and 147 Democrats (assuming all 400 Reps were present for the vote) and only 185 for it. 

Those are facts, but it would be reasonable to assume that the pro gay marriage total would be even wider than that.  First, we’d be another year away with all that many more people having gone through the marriage process (so far, only about 300 gays have applied for marriage licenses, only 150 couples–yes, it’s still two in a couple).

Beyond that, I am convinced that many moderate Republicans would have voted against repeal if they thought their vote was really necessary.  The deal was done, so their no vote was in a sense a “freebie”.   I’m not going to name names, but the person I admire most in the House (Hillsborough County–numbers–hint, hint) I suspect will be on the right side of history, that is to say the non-repeal side, next time around.

Since a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent (239 or 240 votes) to get out of the House, there was never any chance of CACR28 succeeding nor will there be for any similar amendment seeking to enshrine marriage as only a man and a woman in the Constitution.

But the vote against the CACR was almost as overwhelming as against repeal.  It failed 201-135 with no less than 31 Republicans (19.5 percent) voting against it including Deputy GOP leader David Hess of Hooksett.

I’m willing to debate philosophy and principles all day, and Nancy Elliott’s titillation may appeal to some, but these numbers speak for themselves.

The New Hampshire House sent a clear signal Wednesday.

GAY MARRIAGE IS HERE TO STAY.  Try as it might, the right wing will not be able to rescind it, and more and more Republicans are likely to come to accept it.

God bless us, every one.