Rep Bates seems to forget the entire reason why we have a Constitution that protects minority rights. We have those protections so that, in theory at least, no matter how large a majority the rights of the Minolta cannot be arbitrarily taken away. Not only do supporters of marriage equality repeal not have public opinion on their side, their legal maneuverings are unconstitutional.

If he accepted the will of the people, than the fact that marriage equality is LAW in NH, followed by polling data that shows the majority of NH voters support equality, than he'd just shut up. It is, however, Representative Bates that finds marriage equality repugnant, and he's attempting to legislate his own obsessions.

When you dont know the IN From the Out ,and you think the out is IN .your in trouble

What a colossal waste of time on Master Bates part. There is no legal reason to deny civil marriage to same sex couples and he knows this, otherwise he would present one. The fallacy that this should be put to the voters is a simple smokescreen to promote his prejudice and desire to discriminate against his fellow citizens.

The only harm done by same sex marriage is on the hands of Master Bates and others who oppose equal civil rights for all citizens, their families, and their children.

Remember to vote in November. Reject bigotry 2012. Reject fear and loathing 2012.

I am so very, very sad that Dave Bates represents my town. My town is full of caring, intelligent and compassionate people - definitely NOT traits exhibited in Bates. Hateful, cruel and prejudiced. You do not represent us and you will never, ever be re-elected. An elected official has a beautiful opportunity to make the world a better place and this is how you chose to spend your time?. Shame on you, Dave.

Humans come from Man and Woman or dont you know ? its called marrage .

Mr Gill: the state does not require children be born to any couple as a condition of granting marriage rights. So denying same-sex couples right to marry based on that argument is no different than targeting them for discrimination and as such would not be legal.

The state needs to get out of the business of granting marriage licenses. The state should not provide any tax incentives to married persons or heads of households. Nor should it mandate any other economic advantage for those who choose to cohabitate. If two adults wish to make a contract between themselves, let them. Churches can provide marriages, and practitioners of homosexual behavior can shop for ones that will "marry" them. With the state-given economic advantages removed, all persons in unions will have only the social status acribed by others for their particular union. With noone benefiting legally by being joined-other than what they themselves contract for-all will have equality.

Seamus: the people did vote in CA. And that vote was found to be unconstitutional in Federal Court. Your argument is the same argument made in favor of anti-miscegenation laws in the US, and south in particular, in the 1900s. Majorities voting on rights of minorities typically end up being overturned on constitutional grounds. And for good reason.

"They don't like gay love because it's not what they do and it's not what their neighbors do and therefore it must be evil and wrong and bizarre, and, being Americans, if we don't understand something we either kill it or ban it or poison it or vote against it about 1,000 times until we exhaust every possible angle of idiocy. And then last thing we do, the very last thing of all, is to finally, reluctantly, nervously welcome it in. A change finally happens, a switch is thrown, a new generation sweeps in and wonders what the hell the big deal was in the first place, and we wake up to a world that says: Wow, I guess that wasn't so bad after all. We should've allowed that gay marriage thing a lot sooner." -- Mark Morford, SF Gate

There should be no shame for someone who is standing up for what they believe is important to the future of our country. Having a strong opinion doesn't make you "hateful, cruel or prejudiced." You're comments toward Bates for making his own stand seem hateful to me.

Marriage is how a family is defined. Marriage equality allows all families to be equal in the eyes of the state. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one; otherwise stay out of your neighbors business.

@Bek
Rest assured, I respect those who have strong opinions. However, I don't want to be represented by someone who is prejudiced. I do hope that none of Bates' sons is gay because that would be one tough journey for them. Again, I'm just sad.

I'm all for voting on Gay Marraige, as long as it's fair & I get to vote on Bates' marraige as well. Might look a little something like this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

The good lord calls homosexually an abomination....That good enough for me...It is our business when the gays shove their marriage agenda down our throats and our chidrens throats in school etc...what would our grandparents think of all of this...just because times change, does not means our morals and beliefs have to...how far we have come...New Hampshire was once very conservitive....too many Mass impants over the years...wake up NH

Rep Bates needs to be unseated for his narrow minded views.........he probably is hiding some deep seated issue such as his closeted homosexuality.......doth those protest too much.....