The National Catholic Register interviews NH State Rep. David Bates on the effort to restore the real definition of marriage:
“We have, right now, an illegitimate definition of marriage in our state,” said Bates, the lead sponsor of a bill that would turn back the 2009 law that legalized same-sex “marriage” in his state. If the bill passes, it would mark the first time that a legislature will have reversed itself on the contentious issue.
The New Hampshire Legislature is expected to vote later this month on Bates’ bill, which appears to have enough support to pass the Republican-controlled state House and Senate. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who opposed same-sex “marriage” before reversing his position and signing the law in 2009, has vowed to veto the bill.
“I’m sure (the bill) will go to the governor. I’m sure he will veto it. We’ll deal with that when the time comes,” said Bates, adding that it was preliminary to speculate whether there is enough support in the legislature to override a veto.
... The Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire has thrown its support behind Bates’ bill, though it would restore the civil unions that same-sex couples in New Hampshire received before the 2009 law. The diocese said the bill was an “incremental improvement” toward the goal of the “full restoration of justice” and urged Catholics to contact their local representatives.
... As Matthew Franck pointed out in Public Discourse, Judge Reinhardt’s decision rests upon an elision. In order to make the case appear as if it came within existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Judge Reinhardt treated the pronouncement of a simple majority of the judges of the California Supreme Court as if it were the state constitution itself. On Reinhardt’s logic, the California court’s decision, which Proposition 8 overruled, rendered Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reinhardt thus reads the U.S. Constitution to prevent citizens from overruling state supreme court decisions that they believe are errant. This is a novel theory indeed.
