YOUR COMMENTS

The only marriage I care about is mine. As my husband jokes "If gays want to be as miserable as us straights, who am I to deny them that right." All kidding aside, my marriage is in no way diminished, changed, devalued, or altered by two loving people wanting to celebrate their relationship -- be it two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
- sarah, Manchester

If only homosexuals existed in this world, it would soon self extinguish much in the same way the Shaker religion did. The homosexual lifestyle is not self-sustaining.
- Brian, Farmington

Jim of Manchester-you're right in that homosexuality was a facet of the Greek culture, although not as widespread as some believe. However, homosexuals in ancient Greece did not marry. Instead, marriages were reserved for heterosexual couples and arranged by the parents of the bride. In Sparta, it was not uncommon for a soldier to have both a wife and a male companion, especially when at war. Although these same-sex relationships typically involved two men (pederasty), there is also evidence of coupling between women, as in the case of the poet, Sappho.
- susie, Horseshoe Bay, TX (NH native)

Dom in Weare,
Your spin on traditional, historical marriage would be laughable if it weren’t so hateful.

Gay people were often allowed to marry in the past, whether formally or informally, as in ancient Greece, Rome and even for a time around the War of the Roses in Western Europe. But it was found to be corrosive to society and eventually ended.

Your point about interracial marriage is simply a massive and unsupportable generalization.

Your assertion that the tradition of asking the father for their hand in marriage means the women had no say in who or if they wanted to marry if only true if the father hates the daughter.

But the Bible, and indeed nature, teaches that fathers are to love their wives and their children. Living with people you hate and make hate you back is just no fun. I don’t have statistic on ancient societies (and neither do you) but I imagine the majority of fathers did their best to love their families.

In redefining the effects of marriage in the last 100 years, thru suffrage and divorce laws, as you discuss, we have rejected the medieval interpretation of the Bible and patriarchal add-on laws, and returned to a closer interpretation of the original text.

Stop making crap up to justify your position. Just because you hate Christians doesn’t mean you can paint them as historically hateful people.

The marriage issue will never be a done deal. Gays are simply trying to supplant their definition of marriage over that of conservatives. Putting the shoe on the other foot will not fix anything.
- Jim, Manchester

Katie in Manchester,
Thanks you for sharing your experience, and how it informs your desire to vote.

You are certainly entitled to your conclusions but I respectfully disagree, and submit that civil unions would be equally effective at keeping gays out of the closet. Redefining marriage is unnecesary.

Claire in Conway,
Your comment was a personnal attack and out of line.
- Jim, Manchester

Claire from Conway!!!

I don't have a chip on my shoulder! I am glad that my ex if finally happy and with someone who loves him! How dare you!

I just don't like having a law shoved at us with out having any say.

I am a VERY proud American, which has NOTHING to do with this issue!

My suggestion is that you don't speak about something you have NO KNOWLEDGE of!!
- Katie, Manchester

How can marriage be any more destabilizing than it already is? 1 of every 2 marriages fails today and the children suffer. If marriage is to be the rock of stability that you suggest, maybe we should outlaw divorce. What’s stable about parents fighting over the custody of the children?

What is important is that life in the home be a loving, nurturing environment for children. Before we point to a problem that doesn’t exist yet, maybe we should focus on fixing the problem that is broken- heterosexual marriage.
- Gary Way, Bedford

Wayne,
thats not hard to imagine, someone wants to ban my civil right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
- Jim, Manchester

I wonder about the legality of letting the people vote on the civil rights of others. We have freedom of religion and there are religions allow gay marriage. How can we ban that?
Put yourself in their shoes, what if someone wanted to ban one of your freedoms or civil rights. Would you want the Law makers and the courts to decide or your neighbor. I know I would not want some of my neighbors deciding we must live and believe as they do.
- Wayne, Goffstown

Should we have let the voters decide if slavery and interracial marriage bans should have been upheld? The majority always knows better right? Of course not!
- Brian, San Diego, CA

Our young people are fighting overseas in countries where woman have no rights. They are the property of their husband and/or any other male member of their family. Think about it, woman were once property of men in our country as well.
Do you really think anything would have changed here had the male majority been allowed to decide on that one?? Please..
Think about it, read a history book.
This is no different then the rights of women, rights for minorities, the rights of children.
The majority can often be an ignorant bunch afraid of any kind of change. Think of all the great women or all of the great americans of color that never would have
been. Do you really think that gay people choose to be gay? Why would anyone choose to live with the hatefulness that you people are representing.
Why do you think you have the right to put yourselves above another? Letting gays marry doesnt effect your life at all.
Not letting them marry hurts a huge number of people and propagates intolerance.
The answer for the bigots, change the legal word for marriage to something else. Everyone including heterosexuals will be the same under the law. thats it, no debate.
Go to your churches and call it anything you want but leave people alone.
My hope for you is that all of your children and grand children are born gay. What will you do then? and if any of you call that mean spirited..... well think about it...
- Cynthia J Warren, Goffstown

Katie wow got a little chip on the old shoulder? Bitter? Would you feel better dumped by a hetero man? Good luck, but you need to work on that in private, and let cooler heads think on social issues.

If you don't like government making laws you live in the wrong country.
- Claire, Conway

How about we allow two consenting adults decide if they should be married, and just stop interfering with people's private business?

The fringe right is steeped in old school thinking and ignorance.
- Arthur, Manchester

Try using your heads and seeing beyond your noses. Have you ever in your life heard of a married couple, one of which turns out to be in fact gay? This is because in our society marriage is a part of normalcy, which everyone seeks. With legal gay marriage gays won't tend to get into heterosexual marriages just to marry. This will STRENGTHEN Heterosexual marriage, not weaken it. And of course married gays are more stable than unmarred gays.

Their is not one truthful reason to withhold marriage from gays. It's all fear, bigotry, prejudice, or animosity. Wake up.
- Ruth, Bedford

There is a reason legislative action is necessary to protect the rights of the minority and there is historical precedent to support this claim. Time and time again when we try to make progress in this country, whether it be the Civil Rights movement, the women's suffrage movement or numerous other important social gains in this nation it has been the legislature that has acted first. In states where marriage has already been made equal, support for the proposal has continued to increase since passage; affirming that the legislature made the proper decision.

I use my own home as an example. In the District of Columbia, our legislature is now considering a measure to allow equal marriage for all, following New Hampshire's lead. As Councilmember David Catania pointed out, in 1865 the District put a question to the residents: should free African Americans have the right to vote? The City voted and rejected the idea.

This is the reason the New Hampshire legislature should be applauded. They have the foresight to push forward equality for all Americans. I am proud that I will soon live in area that will abide by that famous New Hampshire slogan, "live free or die."

Shame on the Union Leader for suggesting that we should strip Americans of their rights.
- Kevin O'Connor, Washington, DC

I personally don't care if gay couples marry or not. To me that is not the issue. I have a few gay friends and if they want to marry more power to them! What I do have a problem with is the State Government TELLING us that this is a law now. We should have the right to vote in a new law like this, plain and simple. However, perhaps if they are allowed to marry gay men won't have to hide who they are, marry a women and have children only to come out of the closet and drag 3 innocent people into this mess....... my children and I are still recovering from that closet door hitting us in the face!
- Katie, Manchester

My beloved grandmother (always wonderful to me, but an old-school Irish immigrant bigot herself,) would pound her cane into the floor when she'd see a black man dancing with a white woman on The Lawrence Welk show, waaaay back in the early 60's. Even though I was in grammar school, I recall her tension over these type things. She was a rabid fan of the Union Leader and it's red ink headlines. In the early 60's interracial marriage was illegal in over 15 states.

Times change and things are supposed to IMPROVE and PROGRESS. Certainly, any change and improvement must be done against the grain of our old prejudices, and this is what is happening.
- Beverly, Nashua

I wonder if a man and a woman can get a civil union instead of getting married.
- DM, Hampton

The Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal. And they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". There is no clause in those sentences that states "unless you're a woman, or non-white, or gay".

Our great country does not operate on the grounds of mob justice. Our country DOES operate on the principle (as pointed out by Fishercat in Dover Thank you!) that the will of the many WILL NOT trample the rights of the few. That is the American way.

This editorial, and its attendant beliefs, are not about preserving the sanctity of anything. It IS about encouraging the denial of equal rights and equal protections for legal and lawful citizens of the State of New Hampshire and the United States in general. And that is totally against what this country was founded of and for.

A vote against equal marriage, equal rights and equal protections, is a vote AGAINST everything this country stands for. But it is a typical ploy of the modern conservative...to portray themselves as victims while they busily work to deny rights and protections to others that conservatives themselves can, and do, exercise.

Peace
- Joel, Nashua

I humbly ask the Union Leader's editors the following question: How does a same-sex couple's right to marry AT ALL affect your marriage? To quote my mother who lives in South Manchester, the only people who seem to want to block marriage for same-sex couples in New Hampshire are a bunch of old fogies in Concord who have nothing better to do. The government has absolutely no business to tell anyone who he or she should or should not marry. This is a libertarian value--and dare I say part of the New Hampshire advantage this *esteemed* publication routinely promotes.
- Michael K. Lavers, Brooklyn, NY (raised in Manchester, NH)

To Deb in Derry and Judy in Bradford,

When you say it's not about hatred or bigotry but just about preserving the institution of marriage, I want to believe that you're sincere about that, but you should do your homework. The history of the institution of marriage is about nothing else BUT hatred and bigotry--the bigotry especially against women, who only up until the past century or so were basically the property of their husbands and had no say as to whether or not they wanted to be married to whomever came along and asked their father for their hand in marriage! It's about the hatred and bigotry against black people who for centuries were not permitted to be married to one another, and only until recently weren't permitted to be married to people of other races. If gay people were never allowed to be married in the past, that doesn't change the fact that it was the result of centuries of hatred and bigotry against them. Since the latter part of the 20th century, when we redefined marriage by allowing interracial marriage and repealing the Head & Master laws that kept women the unwilling subjects of their husbands' will, modern society has been reshaping marriage to be more egalitarian. As a woman, the very last thing you should be doing is trying to defend the institution of marriage, because in doing so you're defending what amounts to the slavery of all women. It's only because we have redefined marriage and reinterpreted Biblical scripture that you're even able to speak your mind, or would you rather go back to the Biblical days of Timothy when women were not to teach or preach but were to remain silent? I didn't thing so.
- Dom, Weare

Fischercat, Dover Wow.. you are really dumb. The "people" didn't decide? What was the Revolutionary War, a picnic? Oh, and you may remember the Civil War, that was not a Yacht race. Marriage is a statue law. There is a Marriage License. One can not marry their sister, nor their doggy. Why? Because the people decided that was not a very good idea. Personally, I don't care about homosexuals getting married. I do care about the effects which this has on taxes, social benefits, et all. But please stop with the "we are a victim" routine. No one cares if you are homosexual. You don't look any different than anyone else.
- tom, manchester,nh

I’ll tell you what, I will come out against gay marriage on the day when all of you “protect the sanctity of marriage” people come out against divorce. Half the people screaming about gay marriage are divorced themselves in the case of some senators more than once or twice.

If you want to protect marriage then put your convictions where your moth is and ban divorce. Do that and I’ll respect your convictions and believe that you find something “sacred” in the institution and join you in the fight to protect it.

You can’t call an institution “sacred” when 50% of its participants casually abandon its principals. Marriage is not sacred marriage is a word and that’s all it is so until it’s treated as “sacred” my position is that a word should belong to anyone who wants to use it.
- Jim, Raymond NH

Accomplishing this would involve overhauling our state legistlative process...and that is a slippery slope. While we are at it, let's outlaw divorce, afterall, it is destabilizing. Marriage is a sacrament within many churches...this is wonderful...but don't let that definition cross over to civil law. We get a birth certificate not a baptismal certificate when we are born. When two consenting adults want to enter into a relationship that defines civil and property rights, the state , not the church ,should define that. Strange that the UL has gone so far as to question Sarah Palin but is in lock step with the social conservatives on this one. Thank the social conservative takeover of the republican party that those who identifcy as republican is somewhere around 22% these days.
- Cathy, Derry

It would be horrible and disgusting to revoke rights already granted. Don't forget, in Maine, they allow for a "people's veto", so no one was ever married under the legislation. Maine, don't forget, also has a tendency to vet such issues via referendum. It's quite possible that they may enact gay marriage again in the future. But the nice thing about New Hampshire (and Vermont) is that referendums are NOT permitted. I say let this one go. Don't take away rights granted. That's wrong minded and mean spirited.
- Bertha Fox-Dominguez, Bedford

A good editorial. Letting the people vote is right, but even better would be a national referendum because a national decision would avoid questions over which marriages from other states would New Hampshire law have to recognize.

By extension of this notion, I assert that reversal of gay marriage by popular vote in 31 states already was, effectively, a national referendum.

Therefore, the gay marriage activists need to recognize they have been soundly, roundly, profoundly beaten on the national scale. Gay activists should therefore abandon their attempts based on legislative and judicial fiat, and go back to subversive, stealthy infiltration of public education, corporate diversity programs, the secular media, and misguided liberal churches in order to achieve their social re-engineering.

While I support letting the people vote, I am irritated with the gay activist losers for forcing us to work and waste money, and for distracting all of us from important matters like family, jobs, healthcare, and the economy.

You gay activists have lost 31 times out of 31, so it really is time to surrender. Failure to surrender tells me you gay activists just want the attention and you relish in your "victimhood."
- Ed Holdgate, Live Free or Die Sandown, NH

Go ahead. Put it to a vote. Since New Hampshire only allows the people to vote on constitutional amendments, it will need a 2/3 majority to pass. And that's not going to happen.

After all that whining that Democrats were "wasting time" with "unimportant" issues like gay marriage... now you want to focus on it again? The sheer hypocrisy.
- Tom, Keene

It's easy to take a strong position after the vote. The courage is taking it before. Can you hear me, Frank?

They couldn't even win York County. Mainers want Mass values to stop at the state line. The evidence is everywhere. http://www.bangordailynews.com/external/Question1/Vote2009GraphicFINAL.pdf

Gays better get used to their level of 'tolerance'. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. Press on. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/05/the_maine_vote_for_marriage_99020.html
- Steve, Manch

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's nonsense to insist that the issue be put to a popular vote. Why this issue? Why not ending the war? Going to war? Bailing out banks? Why not let the people vote on other civil rights?

Perhaps you'd like to see a return to slavery or denying women the right to vote. It's ludicrous. Our elected officials have voted. Get on with your lives. Let equal mean equal...
- Susan, Raymond

This issue is really about two things: fear and power.

Some people fear giving others the right to make their own choices. They are bigots and should be ashamed of themselves. They can deny their bigotry all they want, but it is very clear to those who actually think.

Some people want power and use non-issues like this to gain it. They fear-monger and use bigotry to gain votes.

The real solution is to get government totally out of people's personal decisions. After all, its nobody's business. Remove the government's power to "define marriage" and that solves it. Bigots can scream their hatred all they want as long as they can't point guns at people and say "I"m going to force you to stop loving that person".
- Ron Helwig, Deerfield

Unlike what is said about those of us who do not back gay marriage it is not about hate, fear or bigotry. It's about what marriage has always been and thinks it should still be and since changing marriage also changes society why can't society decide rather than a hand full of politicians.

Other than that you will never see me interfere in the lives of gays. Yet I am the one who has to put up with the name calling for my beliefs by gay marriage supporters and if you're a Christian the name calling only gets worse by those who claim to be the kind and compassionate ones. These same people also want everyone to believe that once this line is crossed the meaning of marriage will never be changed to include anything else again and by now we should all know that to be the lie it is.
- Deb, Derry

This issue should be decided by the people. Todays Politicians forget they work for the people and did not vote the way their constituents wanted. The citizenry is waking up to the fact that all Politicians vote to promote their own agenda and for whoever gives them the most money. Our own two-faced Govenor lied about his position. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.
- John D., Danbury

You are absolutely right! And while we are at it, let's vote on inter racial marriage, abortion, whether women can own property, and having Christianity taught in public schools. Sounds like the sensible readership of this paper could sort those issues all out too!
We have enacted laws to protect discrimination for minority groups, so that those groups are not subject to the whims of the majority. Gay marriage is about such issues as parental custody of children, inheritance of property, and medical decision making to name a mere few. Marriage for committed couples IS about stability and obligations to the community and society. It is a legal contract to uphold those obligations between two individuals. I would think our society would EXPECT couples who are going to share a life to enter into such a committed contract!
- pjtank, Northwood

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is such a problem for people. I am absolutely shocked by people who are opposed to this. I believe in equality for all. There are those that say that as well except there is always seems to be a "but" after the statement. I don't understand why heterosexual people are so threatened by this. I really would like an explanation from them that makes sense. Right now it doesn't. It is 2009. Have we, as a country, learned anything?
- Debbie, Goffstown

The majority should not rule for the minority, it is not fair. Fear, bigotry and ignorance will be the only winners. Let commited homosexual couples have the same rights. Steadfast in Unity, what about protecting the children who are gay, not by choice but because it is who they are?? Do you want them to grown up in a society that promotes intolerance and hate??? No one chooses who they are, simple truth. Were that so, everyone who is heterosexual made a decision to be that and thought about being homosexual. Live and let live.
- Laura, Weare

Scott, you obviously missed my point.

What constitutes a family? Purposely denying children the very special, different psychological and other benefits of both a mother and father for the well-being of a child's best development is not in the child's best interest. This goes for woman who chose to get pregnant (many too young to know what that really means) and don't think a man/father/husband in a child's life is that important. Children need and thrive best when they have both very different influences in their lives. Men and women are still very different no matter how hard people try to make this a genderless society. That's just another one of the devasting slippery slope problems that adversely effects a child's potential to become the best that they can be. Husband's and men are extremely important to counter balance the different woman's nature. It's the perfect combination even with all of its flaws and hard work to get along. It's the design by purpose by God, nature or whatever you want to call it.

Blacks are born black and obviously deserved equality. There is no scientic concensus that gays are born gay. This is not about equal rights for all; it's about spitting in the face of marriage, and preferrential treatment for people who have made a choice to live a certain way and demand everyone else support their choice or else you'll get called all those names and hopefully that will make you shut up and agree. It's bullying and immature behavior; waaaa! I want what I want and I want it now!

Not everyone supports everything I choose to do either, so what? Some people love me, like me, hate me, so what?
- judy, bradford

"Marriage needs to be a rock of stability." Huh?

Half of marriages end in divorce. Half of the other half are miserable. Marriage is an imperfect yet noble attempt to do better via commitment, not some grand perfection of heterosexuals that would be tarnished if others were included. Get off your high horse there UL.

This op-ed is just about the stability of bigotry, and if you don't approve of the term, "hate" for gays you can try "animosity." An intolerant negativity with animosity toward another type of person because of his or her "way" of living is indeed bigoted.

You have shown nothing that evidences any instability due to gay marriage. The bumpkins in Maine are not to be followed back into the darkness.

Real, INTELLIGENT, conservatives keep their noses out of other people's personal lives, and are PROUD they do. Not just ambivalent - PROUD. Today's "conservative" is a backward social engineer. Indeed two people living together who are committed should marry if stability is an issue.
- Tom Labrie, Rochester

Fishercat, you got it wrong. You are free to love, live with, share everything, with whomever you desire. And "mob rule" is NOT when a majority sets up the rules of society, it is when a minority intimidates and tries to change those rules to suit itself. The advantages to marriage that you so much desire exist because marriage is a device intended for building a family and protecting the spouse who takes on the role of raising CHILDREN while the other spouse takes on the role of providing income and shelter. When you or your partner take on the role of raising CHILDREN then you have some right to expect the protections provided by marriage. Until then you are just looking for a free ride by bastardizing an institution that the majority hold sacrosanct. You, Cat, not me, represent the mob. Meanwhile, you and your partner are both free to hold a job, purchase insurance, name each other beneficiary, give power of attorney, write a will, and otherwise live the double-income life which is denied to the couple building the future of America by raising CHILDREN. Those are your rights and nobody is trying to deny them. But you want the rights that go with marriage without having to follow the rules that go with marriage.
- Bruce, Derry

Funny how liberal homosexuals are so selective in their interpretation of the bill of rights.

They want THEIR agenda, and they claim the 1st amendment to spread their agenda in schools, (mandated same-sex education!)...

...but they despise the 1st amendment when it's used to object to their lifestyle, they scream "hate crime!" whenever anyone expresses a contrary opinion, and they generally hate the 2nd amendment, too.

I think that's called "hypocrite". They also can't leave anyplace ALONE. They could move to Mass and leave NH as a refuge for those who wish more conservative lifestyles, but no...they have to make everywhere like What They Like. And will not stop until you are forced, by law, to publicly endorse their lifestyle.

Put. It. To. A. VOTE.
- Mike R., Bedford

You gays got what you wanted when you had civil unions. There is no need to legally label it a marriage, which is between a man and a woman. Do what you want with your own lives, but don't force it down on others. You people are like a bunch of spoiled whining kids and will stomp your feet until you get what you want. I say let the people decide. Don't call it marriage.
- a. jaber, hooksett

Common law marriage, not based in ceremony but protected by law, has been applicable to heterosexual couples for a long time. The commitment of the partners is not less than those of traditional partners. Instead of changing traditional marriage, extending common law marriage with appropriate legal rights is more appropriate.
- R, Raymond

Popular sovereignty was also used by southern states to approve slavery, and now the UL wants to use it to create second-class citizens. 100 years from now people will look at an editorial like this and be sickened.
- Joe, Manchester

Judy, the reason 31 other states have voted is no is because of the fear the religious zealots have placed into parents. Have you seen any of the commercials they have recently run in Maine?

despicable.
- Greg, Manchester

It is about hate, fear and bigotry. If two men or women have a caring relationship let them get married. Let them both have the benfits of a marriage health coverage, medical consent, etc. Let both gay and straight experience the joys and sadness of marriage.
- Scott, Manchester

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that New Hampshire does not have a ballot petition process as other states do.

This Tuesday, we had a chance in Manchester to vote to cap our city's taxes and spending. Why can't we have ballot referenda on issues at a statewide level? The only thing the voters can choose are candidates and constitutional amendments.

Let's empower the people to make these choices. Let's have a ballot petitions in NH.
- Glen, Manchester, NH

Why do gays keep on insisting that people who disagree with them regarding gay marriage, "hate" them? Seems to me gays hate people who believe marriage should be exclusively between a man and woman. Isn't this hypocritical?

Do any of you think that perhaps it has to do with their own conflicted, chosen life style and perhaps a smattering of self-hatred?

31 states have said "no" and isn't that a majority of states and the people deciding as it should be? Perhaps it's time to focus on working on seeking your own individual happiness which is up to each individual, gay, straight, disabled, poor, etc. instead of focusing on trying so desparately to be viewed as a victim? There are real victims of incest, torture, abuse, etc. who are likely to garner more sympathy and understanding.

Personally, I think most people like or dislike people based on who they are, how they're treated by them, etc. rather than whether they're gay, straight, or purple in color.

The arguments are becoming more and more ridiculous and lacking in common sense and truth. Sounds like it's more of a control issue than anything else. Move on with your life as we're all still free (for now) in America to choose happiness or let internal hatred continue to make you more and more bitter and unbecoming.

Calling people bigots, homophobes, discrimanatory, etc. just keeps breeding more hostility and more rebellion against gay marriage. Don't you get it?
- judy, bradford

What hypocrisy! Or maybe I'll give the UL the benefit of the doubt and say What Idiocy! Gay marriage is a done deal in New Hampshire. The issue is over and put to rest. Yet, to prevent it from becoming a political issue that would destabilize society, your answer is to turn it into a political issue that would destabilize society by putting it to a popular vote! What would really be socially destabilizing is rendering all of the marriages that have taken place since the law passed null and void. What would really be socially destabilizing is telling the children of those marriages that their families are no longer families. What would really be socially destabilizing is telling gay people that they can't form families the way straight people can. Those are anti-society and anti-family values. They're anti-civil rights and anti-American and they're morally repugnant. We have soldiers in two wars fighting to defend American civil liberties and freedoms from those who would impose their religious laws on the entire state, but here at home we have newspapers like the UL trying to strip away the rights of a minority by putting them up to a majority vote. It's reprehensible.
- Dom, Weare

The American way is to let the people vote. Our power is in the freedom to vote out harmful liberal shames like same-sex marriage. The future is looking very dark for our children if we can't give them a moral foundation not only in a family but in our state and nation. God is not politically correct.
- Steadfast, Unity

The "people" didn't decide that a black person could marry a white person, didn't decide to desegregate this country and it's schools, didn't decide that people accused of crimes have a right to an attorney, the COURTS did. By the "people" the Union Leader means the majority. This counrty was not founded on mob rule, nor should it operate that way now. The principles of our great nation dictate that the will of the many should not trample the rights of the few... as is is happening when equal rights for all are denied. I give opponents the benefit of the doubt that this is not about hate. However, it IS about the typical CONservative manner of doing things... denying others the rights and privileges they themselves enjoy.
- Fischercat, Dover