Exclusive: New Hampshire’s leading ‘protect marriage’ group pushing gay ‘cures’

Earlier this morning we let you hear a clip wherein the president of New Hampshire’s leading “pro-family” group, Kevin Smith of Cornerstone Policy Research, revealed that he not only wants to get rid of the state’s marriage equality, but also its prior civil unions system. And while we were shocked that he’d admit that the group’s intent went beyond marriage and smack into basic rights and protections, it appears that maybe we didn’t even go far enough in terms of either shock or insight. Because check this out: We just found these “helpful links” listed on Cornerstone’s newly revamped website (which just relaunched today):

Screen Shot 2011-01-05 At 4.13.58 Pm


Yes, that’s right: The group that’s seeking to roll back basic protections in the state is also pushing scientifically-discredited “ex-gay” programs and “research.” Four of the six of the above links (Love Won Out, NARTH, Exodus, and PFOX) are solely dedicated to changing/curing/praying away the gay. As in that’s all they do: Seek ways to keep the “gays can change” meme alive (or perhaps we should say “ex-dead”).

This is not about politics. Not about referenda or court battles. Not about “protecting marriage,” like Cornerstone and their allies at the National Organization For Marriage always claim. What this shows, with 100% certainty, is that the group that’s most prominently, most vocally hoping to reshape the marriage debate in the Live Free or Die State is also hoping to reshape gay people’s very cores of existence in ways that fly in the face of ALL credible science.

They have now put this into the debate. It’s up to us to make sure every single state lawmaker knows it.

Good As You

—  admin

Should New Hampshire’s Gays Be Scared About a Possible Marriage Repeal?


Will New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch's veto be enough to stop Republican lawmakers there from repealing the state's same-sex marriage law? We've been down this path before, with legislators making a stab at repeal just six weeks after the law took effect this time last year; it failed. But now Republicans have gained significantly in both the State Senate and House, and the Concord Monitor says it "seems likely" a repeal of the law will make it through both chambers. Throw in some of NOM and FRC's attack dollars, and you've got folks scurrred: "For now, there are at least two proposed repeal bills in the Legislature and one constitutional amendment. Only the constitutional amendment has the potential to go on a statewide ballot, but not until 2012. Rep. David Bates, a Windham Republican who proposed two of the bills, said he anticipates moving forward with a repeal bill this session but perhaps not pursuing the constitutional amendment until 2012. A constitutional amendment would require a majority vote of 60 percent in the House and Senate, and a two-thirds' majority of the state's voters. The governor would not have a role."

Permalink | 10 comments | Add to del.icio.us

Tagged: , ,


—  admin

New Hampshire’s Union Leader is an anti-gay rag

For those with the romantic notion that all print media necessarily strives to be impartial, New Hampshire’s Union Leader may leave you a little jaded.  The paper –the state’s largest — refused this week to publish the marriage announcement of Manchester, New Hampshire native Greg Gould and his fiance Aurelio Tine, a gay couple living in New York.  The couple plans to wed today in Portsmouth.  Marriage equality became the law of New Hampshire on January 1, 2010.

The Union Leader said in a statement:

This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women, and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage.

That law was not subject to public referendum and the governor (John Lynch) who signed it was elected after telling voters that he was opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, in no state where the public has been allowed a direct vote on the subject has gay marriage prevailed.

We are not “anti-gay.” We are for marriage remaining the important man-woman institution it has always been.

While the law sanctions gay marriage, it neither demands that churches perform them or that our First Amendment right to choose what we print be suspended. In accordance with that right, we continue our longstanding policy of printing letters to the editor from New Hampshire citizens, whether or not they agree with us.

-Joseph W. McQuaid Publisher

They may have the legal right not to print the announcement, but by exercising that right and releasing that ridiculously bigoted statement the publisher has proven beyond a doubt that the Union Leader is not an honest journalistic enterprise but rather just another republican radical right rag.

U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, currently in a tight race for U.S. Senate, released a statament taking the Union Leader to task.  He said, in part:

It is reprehensible that the Union Leader would exclude legal marriage in New Hampshire from publication because of their right-wing agenda. Legitimate minds can disagree over policy but once the law is settled, the paper should put aside differences and allow all couples to have equal access to their publication.

Mr. Gould and Mr. Tine will become legally married this weekend and they should have the same opportunities as everyone in New Hampshire to have their marriage publicized and recognized. The Union Leader‘s disgraceful policy of exclusion harkens to a different time in this country when people were denied opportunity because of their race, religion and ethnic origin.

The GOP failed miserably this past spring in an attempt to force a referendum on the marriage equality law.  I guess the Union Leader hasn’t gotten the message yet that the majority of people in New Hampshire approve of the marriage equality law.  Perhaps this is because the Union Leader only reads its own propaganda?
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin