NH GOP Chair Sununu Says Marriage Equ...

NH GOP Chair Sununu Says Marriage Equality is 'Garbage'

There are 44 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Apr 23, 2009, titled NH GOP Chair Sununu Says Marriage Equality is 'Garbage'. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

On April 21st, New Hampshire held a special election for a state Senate seat. After the Republicans won the election the New Hampshire GOP Chair, John Sununu, had quite a bit to say. While telling everyone how wonderful it was going to be to have the newly elected Jeb Bradley in this seat he managed to say what he really thought about the pending gay marriage legislation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 07

Washington DC

#1 Apr 23, 2009
It's ok now, John. Your anti-gay rantings are only helping your enemies these days. America is finally waking up to the reality that y'all are just a bunch of fearmongers. We've had enough. Go back into your churches, close the doors, and wait for your judgment day. It's gonna be a harsh one for y'all!!
Snowflake

San Francisco, CA

#2 Apr 23, 2009
Sununu is right marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Curtis Lowe

Montgomery, AL

#3 Apr 23, 2009
Live Free of Die baby! You gotta love New Hampshire!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4 Apr 23, 2009
Snowflake wrote:
Sununu is right marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Why?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 Apr 23, 2009
Curtis Lowe wrote:
Live Free of Die baby! You gotta love New Hampshire!
Please say that again once New Hampshire lives up to its motto promulgates marriage equality.
verad

United States

#7 Apr 23, 2009
Snowflake wrote:
Sununu is right marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Why? Are heterosexual couples the only ones who pay taxes??
Curtis Lowe

Montgomery, AL

#8 Apr 23, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Please say that again once New Hampshire lives up to its motto promulgates marriage equality.
Go promulgate yourself. Freak!

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#9 Apr 23, 2009
While anti-discrimination laws typically tend to be violations of the 1st amendment protection of ones freedom of association, I think they all should be abolished; however, if a state is to have such a law then that law should include non-hets, trans and inter-gendered classes as well.

Mr. Solmonese the Human Rights Campaign President was incorrect when he stated “To call basic human rights for thousands of New Hampshire residents ‘garbage’ just shows how out of touch the former governor really is,” Now read clearly my reasoning for stating this. The items that anti-discrimination bill protects are not rights but responsibilities. Having a job is not a right, it however is a responsibility. Providing ones self housing is not a right it is a responsibility. Rights are spelled out in the US Constitution, housing and employment are not in there; however, the right to the freedom of association is!!!

Since: Jul 07

Cincinnati, OH

#10 Apr 23, 2009
censoredagain wrote:
While anti-discrimination laws typically tend to be violations of the 1st amendment protection of ones freedom of association, I think they all should be abolished; however, if a state is to have such a law then that law should include non-hets, trans and inter-gendered classes as well.
Mr. Solmonese the Human Rights Campaign President was incorrect when he stated “To call basic human rights for thousands of New Hampshire residents ‘garbage’ just shows how out of touch the former governor really is,” Now read clearly my reasoning for stating this. The items that anti-discrimination bill protects are not rights but responsibilities. Having a job is not a right, it however is a responsibility. Providing ones self housing is not a right it is a responsibility. Rights are spelled out in the US Constitution, housing and employment are not in there; however, the right to the freedom of association is!!!
Let me get this perfectly clear. If you move into a neighborhood and don't want to live near your neighbors you can have then removed because you have a right not to associate with them? Or does that come under responsibility?

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#11 Apr 23, 2009
How did you extrapolate that scenario from what I said about the issue at hand? Property ownership is a protected right by the US Constitution (with the exception of eminent domain). Your scenario is only for those that have little or no regard to the US Constitution and that is not me.

Since: Jul 07

Cincinnati, OH

#12 Apr 23, 2009
censoredagain wrote:
How did you extrapolate that scenario from what I said about the issue at hand? Property ownership is a protected right by the US Constitution (with the exception of eminent domain). Your scenario is only for those that have little or no regard to the US Constitution and that is not me.
So if someone is renting property in your neighborhood and you didn't like them....could you have them removed based on the fact that they don't quite fit into what you consider moral?

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#13 Apr 23, 2009
devons wrote:
<quoted text>
So if someone is renting property in your neighborhood and you didn't like them....could you have them removed based on the fact that they don't quite fit into what you consider moral?
You did not answer the question on how you extrapolated your original scenario, please answer.

Now to address your new scenario I again refer back to the property rights protection in the US Constitution. No matter what any individual in the neighborhood thinks, the decision lies sole with the property owner. So again your extrapolation of the situation is as far fetched as the assertions made in the "Gathering Storm" ad by NOM.

“Indeed, I am!”

Since: Feb 09

As if it mattered . . .

#14 Apr 23, 2009
Just as the people, through their courts and their legislators, have decided freedom of speech is not unlimited, so also in the freedom of association not unlimited. If someone wishes to engage in profit making enterprises in the public sphere the government has decided they cannot discriminate against certain groups of people. They initially did this because of the egregious abuses people of color received under Jim Crow laws. The concept has been extended to other groups as well. Gender nonconforming people ought to be included by virtue of the harmful prejudice and damaging discrimination they all too often have to face.

Mr. Sununu's comment calling civil marriage equality "garbage" doesn't just show how out of touch he is, it shows how much he doesn't care about equality and fair treatment under the law. He, like the rest of the radical, religious extremist, Republican party, wants to continue and increase the prejudicial discrimination that is built into our laws. I think this is wrong and that it's very proper to call him on his hateful words.

Since: Jul 07

Cincinnati, OH

#15 Apr 23, 2009
censoredagain wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not answer the question on how you extrapolated your original scenario, please answer.
Now to address your new scenario I again refer back to the property rights protection in the US Constitution. No matter what any individual in the neighborhood thinks, the decision lies sole with the property owner. So again your extrapolation of the situation is as far fetched as the assertions made in the "Gathering Storm" ad by NOM.
So if you convince the property owner that their renter does not live up to your morals that renter should be forced to move?

I'm just trying to come up with situations that could be a problem based on your ideas. Just to warn you I have many many more situations that have to be addressed. As we have learned over many many years laws and ideas can back fire and often do. When someone believes a law only does this other people may find many ways to use that law for their own situations.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#16 Apr 23, 2009
Hiring practices are controlled by law; that means that they must cover all citizens equally, constitutionally speaking. Freedom of association covers people, not businesses. Moreover, your right to association does NOT keep others from associating in the same group or company. YOU have the right to associate or not; so do they.
censoredagain wrote:
While anti-discrimination laws typically tend to be violations of the 1st amendment protection of ones freedom of association, I think they all should be abolished; however, if a state is to have such a law then that law should include non-hets, trans and inter-gendered classes as well.
Mr. Solmonese the Human Rights Campaign President was incorrect when he stated “To call basic human rights for thousands of New Hampshire residents ‘garbage’ just shows how out of touch the former governor really is,” Now read clearly my reasoning for stating this. The items that anti-discrimination bill protects are not rights but responsibilities. Having a job is not a right, it however is a responsibility. Providing ones self housing is not a right it is a responsibility. Rights are spelled out in the US Constitution, housing and employment are not in there; however, the right to the freedom of association is!!!

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#17 Apr 23, 2009
Snowflake wrote:
Sununu is right marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Why not, one partner can have a sex change and follow the law.

But then, Sununu could change sex and maybe understand why its not procreation that dictates marriage but the desire to have a legal and equal relationship in its interaction with the government.

Love has little to do with marriage between differently sexed partners, its lust, love may come later, then hate and the divorce.55/45 about now.

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#19 Apr 23, 2009
devons wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you convince the property owner that their renter does not live up to your morals that renter should be forced to move?
If the property owner makes that decision and there is no contract saying otherwise then yes.
devons wrote:
<quoted text> As we have learned over many many years laws and ideas can back fire and often do. When someone believes a law only does this other people may find many ways to use that law for their own situations.
That is the great thing about the free market, one or a group of consumers can affect change with their $ vote. The consumers do not need the government to protect workers rights, employee's rights or anything else because if discrimination is bad for business then the business will go under.

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#20 Apr 23, 2009
Cpetr13 wrote:
Hiring practices are controlled by law; that means that they must cover all citizens equally, constitutionally speaking. <quoted text>
Hiring for private business should not be the domain of government. It is government infringing on the business owner/s rights of free association.
Cpetr13 wrote:
Freedom of association covers people, not businesses.<quoted text>
who owns businesses? People. The only problem in this field would be corporations but then that should be left up to the stockholders.

Cpetr13 wrote:
Moreover, your right to association does NOT keep others from associating in the same group or company. YOU have the right to associate or not; so do they.
<quoted text>
Agreed but one can only be on private property (a business is private property) if the property owner allows which can reduce the likely hood of the situation you posed above, but on public property you are completely right.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#21 Apr 23, 2009
You need to learn the difference between a company and a citizen. Until you learn and understand that, the rest of this is futile.
censoredagain wrote:
<quoted text> Hiring for private business should not be the domain of government. It is government infringing on the business owner/s rights of free association.
<quoted text> who owns businesses? People. The only problem in this field would be corporations but then that should be left up to the stockholders.
<quoted text> Agreed but one can only be on private property (a business is private property) if the property owner allows which can reduce the likely hood of the situation you posed above, but on public property you are completely right.

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Asheboro, NC

#22 Apr 23, 2009
Cpetr13 wrote:
You need to learn the difference between a company and a citizen. Until you learn and understand that, the rest of this is futile.
<quoted text>
I do know the difference between a company and an individual but as long as they pay government taxes and government fees they are citizens. I do understand and agree in part with Nader on Corporations because it is hard to hold them accountable but for single proprietorship's, partnerships and O&O's they are citizens without any stretch of the imagination.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In minority party, Hassan says she'll stand up ... Nov '16 former democrat 3
News U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin Renews Call for Inve... Aug '16 USA Today 1
News Clinton receives long-awaited endorsement from ... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Jeff Brightone 1
News Warren slams Trump and key surrogate Scott Brown (Jun '16) Jun '16 He Named Me Black... 10
News Senate rejects adding $600M to anti-heroin legi... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Mite Be 8
News Clinton making a personal pitch to New Hampshir... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Dave Yankee 40
News Why Clinton's feminist pitch is not working in ... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Ritual Habitual 2
More from around the web