Bates, who is the chief sponsor of a measure to repeal the law, told the crowd there is no truth more self-evident under the federal Constitution than men and women were created for each other.

David Bates

"Other arrangements are unnatural and incapable of sustaining the human species," Bates said.

Supporters said the proposed repeal bill would not apply to gay marriages that have already occurred, but would stop new ones.

Since 2010, 1,866 New Hampshire gay couples have married, according to the state division of vital records. Repeal opponents say Bates' bill has conflicting provisions that appear to bar the courts from recognizing same sex relationships as valid, while declaring same sex marriages in effect before the repeal took effect to remain valid.

Bates has said he is working on an amendment to clarify that and several other issues. Republican House Speaker William O'Brien called the gay marriage law an attack on the family that must be reversed.

Associated Press, via The Boston Globe

Bishop Gene Robinson -- the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, and a resident of the state -- observed, "I'm surprised at how small the crowd is."

Robinson also indicated that he had not heard of any clergy suffering an ill effect because of the law or that any individuals suffered ill effects, and said New Hampshire polls show a majority oppose repealing the law.

The state's Republican-controlled Legislature has not scheduled a date for Bates' measure to be voted on in this year's session, and Gov. John Lynch (D) has repeatedly warned lawmakers he will veto attempts to repeal the law, which he signed in 2009.

Lynch had signed the civil unions law enacted in 2007, which was replaced that with the marriage equality law two years later.

Bates' bill would not enact the same civil unions law that was in effect before gays were allowed to marry. That law granted gays all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except in name.

Under Bates' proposed civil unions law, any two adults could enter into a union, any person or group would be able to refuse to recognize the unions.

It also would allow anyone to discriminate against the couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.

Bates has also launched a direct mail campaign using personal funds to garner support for his bill.

David Bates

Despite all the national lobbyist money floating around on the gay marriage repeal effort, Bates, the prime sponsor and driving force behind the bill, is committed to waging his own campaign. Those letters are going across the state, targeting any district where the representative is on the fence or has views unknown. And they're paid for entirely out of his pocket, he said.

"I'm serious about the issue," he said Wednesday outside the State House. Bates, who is listed on the letter in his capacity as chairman as of the House Election Law Committee, declined to say how much the statewide mailings are costing him, but "it's not an insignificant amount."

More: Concord Monitor

This is not the first time Bates his pumped thousands of dollars of his own money into an anti-gay marriage campaign. In 2010, he headed up the "Let NH Vote" movement to rally support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Bates' bill, which has 11 co-sponsors, is not yet scheduled for a floor vote, though it will likely be taken up in the coming weeks.

House Majority Leader Rep. David Bettencourt (R-Salem), who formally introduced the House Republican agenda, told reporters that the House was focusing on changes to economic and education policy that would bring job creators to New Hampshire and put citizens back to work.

Bettencourt also said that lawmakers did not need to spend much time on same-sex marriage, which is the target of several bills aimed at repealing repeal it.

"If their minds aren't already made up, it's something they're intimately familiar with," said Bettencourt of his fellow Republicans.

Other controversial social issues such as gun rights, immigration and labor laws were all also absent from the agenda.

Bettencourt said such bills distract from the Legislature's real initiatives.

New Hampshire is one of six states -- along with the District of Columbia -- where same-sex marriage is legal. The others are New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

Eventually, NOM found a talking point it was happy with: pro-equality legislators had been bribed with campaign cash in exchange for pushing the bill through.

The group accused legislators in Albany of rampant corruption, with NOM president Brian Brown asserting that pro-equality Republicans had “sold their vote to the highest bidder.”

NOM even launched an online “Money Dance” ad campaign targeting the four GOP senators who voted in favor of marriage equality:

The advertisement, called "Money Dance," is modeled after the practice of some brides and grooms dancing for money with supporters at their wedding. In this case, the four Senators -- Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti, James Alesi and Stephen Saland - are dancing with wealthy contributors like Michael Bloomberg and Tim Gill who purchased their allegiance during the recent legislative session. [emphasis added]

Now that the focus has shifted away from New York, however, it seems NOM is doing exactly what it accused gay activists of doing: buying votes. In New Hampshire, the organization has pledged $250,000 to “reward” politicians who “stand up for restoring traditional marriage”:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's leading pro-marriage organization, today announced that it will spend $250,000 in legislative races to help legislators who support HB 437 restoring traditional marriage and hold accountable anyone who opposes the Same-Sex Marriage Repeal Bill. The Bill, HB 437, will be up for a vote in the next few weeks.

“Sixty-one percent of New Hampshire GOP primary voters support a legislative definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman alongside of a provision for civil unions,” stated Brian Brown, NOM's president. "We intend to hold every legislator accountable for his or her vote on marriage. Those who support HB 437 will be rewarded, while those who don’t will suffer the consequences in the next election.” [emphasis added]

This isn’t the first time that NOM has pledged money to effect a certain outcome in favor of its politics. After criticizing gay millionaire Tim Gill for pledging to oust anti-equality politicians in Colorado, NOM set aside $1 million to defeat pro-equality legislators in Maryland.

NOM’s history of hypocrisy goes beyond financial matters.

The group has routinely attacked state legislatures for bringing up pro-equality legislation instead of focusing on reviving their local economies, all the while encouraging other state legislatures to prioritize initiatives that restrict relationship recognition for gay couples.

And though NOM frequently champions its “let the people vote” mantra in response to pro-equality legislation, the catch phrase doesn’t apply in states where voters aren’t on NOM’s side.

The measure would allow businesses that oppose marriage equality to deny services to same-sex couples based on their “conscience” or religious beliefs. It also protects them from any civil claim of action for doing so:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person, including a business owner or employee thereof, shall be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage and providing such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges would be a violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.

A person’s refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such person.

Given the bill doesn’t even specify “same-sex” marriage, it would hypothetically protect the right of “conscience” to discriminate against any kind of marriage, including interracial, binational, and interdenominational couples. For this reason, it’s likely this bill would be preempted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other nondiscrimination statutes.

The language in this measure mirrors similar “license to bully” exemptions that have been proposed in Michigan and Tennessee that would protect students from discipline if they expressed anti-gay views in school.

New Hampshire’s Republican-dominated legislature is also considering a bill that would repeal marriage equality despite the fact most New Hampshire voters support maintaining the law.

"We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage," he said. "It's critical to keep to keep legislative priorities in their proper order. The legislation [The Repeal Bill] will not be considered for a floor vote until February."

Bettencourt had previously indicated in late December that the House would most likely vote on the issue Jan. 11 or today.

Legislative sources said Wednesday that the bill was not listed on the House legislative agenda, however, one lawmaker told a New Hampshire newspaper that she had been ready to vote today to oppose a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage law.

State Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, confirmed that the measure did not appear on the House calendar, but lawmakers were expected to cast their votes Wednesday, she said. According to the House Majority leader, the vote on House Bill 437 was never formally scheduled, claiming that he was only speculating as the House Speaker William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, is in charge of the House calendar.

But Pantelakos, a lawmaker in the House for 34 years, said that was news to her. "I was definitely looking to vote on it today," she said.

The bill's lead sponsor is Rep. David Bates, R-Windham. Bates said yesterday there was never any plan to debate his legislation today. The top priority today is a legislative redistricting bill, he said.

Although the vote on gay marriage will occur in February, the overall focus has not changed, Bettencourt said.

"Today, our citizens are most concerned about pocketbook issues like taxes, controlled spending, job creation and creating a business-friendly environment, and that is where we intend to remain focused," he said.

More than 1,800 gay couples have gotten married in New Hampshire since the same-sex law took effect two years ago, according to the state Division of Vital Records.

Pantelakos said she has received many emails from constituents who say the law should remain in place.

"It's an issue we don't ever need to be dealing with," she said. "Our Constitution, it says we are all equal, so why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?" Pantelakos said.

The New Hampshire Eagle Tribune

More than 1,800 gay couples have gotten married in New Hampshire since the same-sex law took effect two years ago, according to the state Division of Vital Records.

The state's Democratic Governor John Lynch, has promised to veto the same-sex marriage repeal bill.

A senior legislative assistant, speaking on the condition of anonymity, indicated that a vote on the measure has tentatively been scheduled for next Wednesday, Jan. 18.

Both sides of the same-sex marriage debate expect the Republican-controlled House to pass a bill that would replace the law legalizing same-sex marriage with civil unions for any unmarried adults. The measure would also allow anyone to refuse to recognize civil unions.

The measure is also expected to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Democratic Governor John Lynch, who, in 2009, signed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, has publicly stated he will veto any effort to repeal the law.

Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley said he can’t predict if there will be enough votes needed to override the Governor's veto.

New Hampshire is currently one of only six states, along with the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal — New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont are the remaining five states.

A University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll conducted last October found that 62 percent of registered New Hampshire voters support the state's marriage equality law, and nearly 44 percent of those polled said they would consider voting against any lawmaker who supported the repeal bill.

The often testy exchange occurred as Santorum addressed the College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College and open to students from all over the state, regardless of political party.

One student started the conversation by asking Santorum — a fervent opponent of same-sex marriage — why he did not think that equality included allowing members of the same gender to marry, reported The New York Times.

"If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” asked Santorum in reply, to which the audience booed. “What about three men?” continued Santorum.

Watch:

According to Times report, audience members continued booing Santorum as he exited the event.

“Rick Santorum’s anti-gay hate is not going to perform well in New Hampshire," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "His reception there is indicative of just how poorly he will fare with mainstream voters as the primaries progress,”

“Rick Santorum’s views are out of step with the majority of Americans across demographics and faiths. He is basing his campaign off of bashing an entire community of his fellow Americans. That may serve him well with certain constituencies, but it’s something most Americans will not stand for,' said Solmonese.

Santorum has a long history of trying to score political points through the bashing LGBT people.

In addition to speaking out against marriage equality on a regular basis, he also has criticized LGBT families and adoption, and called the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) a means of forcing “social policy into the military.”

Last fall, Santorum told a gay soldier he would reinstate DADT because "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

The legislature convenes Jan. 4, however lawmakers might not vote on the marriage repeal until after the Jan. 10 presidential primary, instead taking up a handful of vetoed bills held over from the previous session, reported the Associated Press.

According to House GOP majority leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem), the House most likely won’t cast its votes until Jan. 11, and possibly delay action until Jan. 18.

Bettencourt says the presidential candidates should have the spotlight until after the primary.

“The presidential candidates have a hard enough time getting their message out. This is the time for them to shine. We want them to get all the attention possible," said Bettencourt.

Both sides of the same-sex marriage debate expect the Republican-controlled House to pass the bill that would replace the law legalizing same-sex marriage with civil unions for any unmarried adults, including relatives. The measure would allow anyone to refuse to recognize civil unions.

The Republican-controlled Senate also is expected to support repealing gay marriage, but Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley said he can’t predict if there will be the votes needed to override a veto.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch promises to veto the bill if it reaches him.

Associated Press, via The Boston Globe

New Hampshire enacted civil unions in 2007 for same-sex couples and two years later replaced that law with the marriage law. Lynch also signed the civil unions law.

New Hampshire is currently one of only six states, along with the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal — New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont are the remaining five states. Thirty-one other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Romney was working the breakfast crowd at Chez Vachon diner drumming up support for his campaign when he slid into a booth occupied by a gentleman wearing a Vietnam Veteran baseball cap. After a round of small talk, Romney found himself being asked whether he favored repeal of New Hampshire's Same-Sex marriage law.

Bob Garon (left) with Mitt Romney

"I support the repeal, I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney replied in response.

The vet, 63-year-old Bob Garon from the town of Epsom, N.H. then challenged the former Massachusetts governor saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”

Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”

“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

“No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney replied. “And I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”

With that, a Romney aide interrupted, saying, “Governor, we’ve got to get on with Fox News right now.”

“Oh,” said Garon. “I guess the question was too hot.”

“No, I gave you the answer,” Romney said.

“You did,” Garon said. “And I appreciate your answer. And you know, I also learned something and New Hampshire is right. You have to look a man in the eye to get a good answer, and you know what, Governor, good luck.”

“Thank you, appreciate it,” Romney said. “Have a good day to you, sir.”

“You’re going to need it,” Garon replied.

“You are right about that,” Romney said as he left the table.

Reporters then clustered round Garon, who disclosed that he was in fact gay and that the other gentleman sitting at the table across from the seat that the governor had just vacated was his husband, Bob Lemire, whom he had married last June.

“I’m totally convinced today that he’s not going to be my president at least in my book,” Garon told reporters. “At least Obama will entertain the idea. This man is ‘No way, Jose.’ Well, take that, ‘No way, Jose’ back to Massachusetts.”

“I went and fought for my country and I think my spouse should be entitled to the same [benefits as they would] if I were married to a woman,” Garon added. “What the hell is the difference?”

State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), who also is sponsor of the repeal bill, said did not want to risk having lawmakers choosing between two measures -- the bill to repeal same-sex marriage, and a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Bates told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he wants to let the state legislature to repeal the marriage equality law enacted under Democrats two years ago, because the process to implement a constitutional change would take longer.

"The bill to change the meaning of marriage back to what it was in statute is well on its way," Bates said.

"It would complicate the decision for legislators if there was another alternative out there," he said.

The legislative process seems the appropriate way to decide the issue, he said. If a constitutional amendment is used, millions of dollars in out-of-state money would flow into New Hampshire on both sides of the issue, he said.

"I don't think that's the way people want it decided," he said.

Associated Press, via Boston Globe

Bates' effort runs counter to most same-sex marriage opponents, whose battle cry is often "let the people vote," as in the strategy of the National Organization for Marriage, particularly where New York is concerned.

But in New Hampshire, a constitutional amendment would require approval by three-fifths of both houses of the state legislature to be placed on the ballot, and two-thirds approval of the voters to be adopted.

And since an October poll revealed that most voters do not want to repeal the marriage equality law, the likelihood that a constitutional amendment would garner two-thirds approval of the voters is slim.

In the legislature, where it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill, Bates said he believes the law will be repealed.

The House Judiciary Committee voted last week to recommend replacing the law legalizing same-sex marriage with civil unions for any unmarried adults, including relatives.

The proposed civil unions law would be open to any two adults and would let anyone refuse to recognize the unions. It also would allow anyone to discriminate against such couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.

The full House must vote on the bill early next year. If the House passes the repeal bill, it would go to the Senate.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has repeatedly said he will veto attempts by the Republican-controlled Legislature to repeal the law, which he signed in 2009. New Hampshire enacted civil unions in 2007 for same-sex couples and two years later replaced that law with the marriage law. Lynch also signed the civil unions law.

New Hampshire is currently one of only six states, along with the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal -- New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont are the remaining five states. Thirty-one other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

A spokesman for the group -- Standing Up for New Hampshire Families -- said that GOP lawmakers should focus solely on creating jobs, assisting businesses, and reinvigorating the economic climate in the state, and not on repealing the law that has been in effect almost two years which legalizes same-sex marriages.

Former New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick, who is currently dean of the University of New Hampshire Law School, is a supporter of the new group. Broderick issued a statement Thursday coinciding with the announcement, saying "it would be tragic to turn back the clock to the dark days of discrimination, intolerance and false stereotypes."

Standing Up for New Hampshire Families plans to operate a phone bank to call lawmakers urging them to vote against the bill.

Last week, New Hampshire lawmakers moved another step closer to repealing the state’s 15-month-old law, when the House Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 to recommend eliminating gay marriage rights for same-sex couples, and to instead establish civil unions for any unmarried adults competent to enter into a contract, including relatives.

The committee also recommended killing a second bill that would have simply repealed the gay marriage law.

The bill would not enact the same civil unions law that was in effect before gays were allowed to marry. The former civil unions law granted gays all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except in name -- the proposed civil unions law would be open to any two adults and would let anyone refuse to recognize the unions, and would allow anyone to discriminate against such couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.

The full House will now vote on the bill in early January. If passed, it would than go before the State Senate, and a public hearing would be held on the proposed legislation.

Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in only six states -- New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont -- and the District of Columbia.

Rick Perry

Speaking before an enthusiastic crowd at the Cornerstone Action's annual banquet, Perry said, "As conservatives we believe in the sanctity of life. We believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage and I applaud those legislators in New Hampshire who are working to defend marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, realizing that children need to be raised in a loving home by a mother and a father."

In June 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Earlier this week, LGBTQ Nation reported that the state's GOP lawmakers on Tuesday moved another step closer to repealing the state’s 15-month-old same-sex marriage law.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 to recommend eliminating gay marriage rights for same-sex couples, and to instead establish civil unions for any unmarried adults competent to enter into a contract, including relatives.

In his speech, the Texas governor also praised Republican led efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

"Unfortunately this current administration has since provided one million dollars in federal grant money to Planned Parenthood in direct conflict with this state's policies. And the bottom-line is this: If you want to stop Washington's many violations of the 10th Amendment ... then we must make President Obama a one-term president," Perry said.

This past June, New Hampshire's Executive Council voted 3-2 to end the the state's $1.8 million contract with Planned Parenthood. The Obama administration restored the funding in September.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 to recommend eliminating gay marriage rights for same-sex couples, and to instead establish civil unions for any unmarried adults competent to enter into a contract, including relatives.

The committee also recommended killing a second bill that would have simply repealed the gay marriage law.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has repeatedly said he will veto attempts by the Republican-controlled Legislature to repeal the law, which he signed in 2009.

New Hampshire enacted civil unions in 2007 for same-sex couples and two years later replaced that law with the marriage law. Lynch also signed the civil unions law.

[...]

The bill would not enact the same civil unions law that was in effect before gays were allowed to marry. That law granted gays all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except in name. The proposed civil unions law would be open to any two adults and would let anyone refuse to recognize the unions. It also would allow anyone to discriminate against the couples in employment, housing and public accommodations based on religious or moral beliefs.

Associated Press, via the Boston Globe

Tuesday's action follows a subcommittee recommendation that the House pass the bill to repeal the law, which took effect last year and legalized same-sex unions.

The full House will now vote on the bill in early January. If passed, it would than go before the State Senate, and a public hearing would be held on the proposed legislation.

New Hampshire is currently one of only six states, along with the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal.

The action follows a subcommittee recommendation that the House pass the bill to repeal the law, which took effect last year and legalized same-sex unions.

The measure calls for establishment of civil unions for any unmarried adults who are legally eligible.

Opponents of the measure argue that the legislation will return New Hampshire to a period where civil unions did not provide legal protections for same-sex couples, however, State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham, N.H.), the bill's chief sponsor, said there is no reason to limit civil unions and the legal protections they provide solely to same-sex couples.

If the House Judiciary Committee recommends passage to the House, the full House will vote on it in January. If passed, it would than go before the State Senate, and a public hearing would be held on the proposed legislation.

Currently, there are more than 1,713 married, same-sex couples in the state.

New Hampshire is one of only six states, along with the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal.