According to the AP, the New Hampshire State House on Thursday voted narrowly to make that state the third that would allow gay couples to marry.

The bill, HB 436, which passed the House 186-179, next goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Governor John Lynch (D) claims to oppose gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it. Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.

Currently, only Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry. The Vermont Senate sent a gay marriage bill to the House this week, but Gov. Jim Douglas (R) says he will veto it if it reaches his desk.

Rep. Melanie Levesque (D-Brookline), who is black and married to a white man, said her marriage was still a crime in Virginia in the mid-1960s. “We have had a long history of challenging conventional wisdom — the Earth is flat, people from different continents should not marry, people who are the same should not marry,” she said.

Never one to be shy, longtime RLC ally Steve Vaillancourt (pictured, right) defended his vote in favor of gay marriage in an e-mail to me (posting permission granted):

“As happy as I was over the victory of gay marriage yesterday, I was deeply saddened that only 13 Republicans were on board for the first vote and then only 12 for the second vote (and only five for the vital bill of granting equal rights to transgendered folks). I am ashamed of the Republican Party; I am especially ashamed of Republicans who claim to be libertarians who could not bring themselves to vote for this bill.“

“I am disgusted by Chairman Sununu’s attempt to brand New Hampshire as San Francisco. As wrong as he is morally, he is equally as wrong politically. These scare tactics will not merely fair, but they will backfire. He is leading the party to permanent minority status. Republicans are losing the moral authority on spending and less government issues by insisting on staking out the immoral ground on social issues from marriage to — dare I say it — the humane issue of medical marijuana.”

“We must end all discrimination, and we must do it now. There’s never been a better time.”

In addition to the correct vote cast by Vaillancourt, RLC-endorsed State Rep. Calvin Pratt also was one of the thirteen courageous Republicans with a backbone.  RLC-endorsed Rep. Jenn Coffey was not able to vote on the measure because she was at work.  (New Hampshire does not have a full-time legislature.)

Even past RLC allies were wrong on this bill: for example, State Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized the House vote as an “attempt by the liberal Democrats in the Legislature to impose their San Francisco agenda on the state of New Hampshire.” Additionally, State Rep. Nancy Elliott of Merrimack said marriage was instituted by God and that “marriage between a man and a woman is perfect and holy.” Perhaps so, but the government has no reputation of sanctioning that which is holy or perfect, nor is that the role of government.

As controversial as this post may be, it is important that it be made. Please note that I am writing to express my own view on the issue of gay marriage (which is not necessarily representative of other opinions within the RLC).

Personally, I hope the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the Governor.  Thanks to Reps. Vaillancourt and Pratt for representing the correct libertarian perspective on the issue — EQUAL RIGHTS!

Jacob Sullum recently wrote an excellent article for Reason Magazine attempting to bridge the gap between the anti-gay and pro-gay crusaders. His subheading is absolutely correct: Legal equality does not mean requiring universal acceptance of homosexuality.

If the “gay agenda” entails a demand to be treated equally under the law, how is it that any different than the agenda of African Americans of the 1950s and before, who were forced to use different schools, drinking fountains, and restaurants? Says Sullum:

If there is any room for common ground between these two seemingly irreconcilable perspectives, it lies in recognizing the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination.

Regarding the voters’ will on Proposition 8 in California, Sullum says “… as a matter of fundamental fairness … the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.” He then adds a libertarian caveat: “Ideally, the government would leave marriage to private institutions, which managed to maintain it for almost all of its history.”

Sullum’s rationale is objective. He explains how it was incorrect of a Florida judge to take away a gay couple’s two adopted children (ages four and eight) and then explores how a gay man who sued eHarmony for not including homosexual dating options is violating the principles of choice and diversity that he so seeks to force onto others.

The Amethyst Initiative, an effort recently launched to inform on the debate over the 21 year-old drinking age, is calling upon elected officials to weigh all the consequences of current alcohol policies and to invite new ideas on how best to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol use.

The Republican Liberty Caucus supports the principles of federalism as outlined in the Tenth Amendment: “The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.” When the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, the states surrendered all control over the issue, nationalizing the issue to a set of uniform standards largely influenced by special interest groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The new Amethyst Initiative will, hopefully, revive the debate on this important issue. The initiative has empowered university presidents and chancellors to speak out against the 21 year old drinking age. Among the actions the initiative encourages its members to take include:

1. Urge your college presidents and chancellors to support the proposal. A listing of those supporting the initiative is available at http://www.amethystinitiative.org/signatories/.

2. Sign up at http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/get_involved/ to receive updates from the Amethyst Initiative or to volunteer for the cause.

3. Read why each president, in his or her own words, signed the Amethyst Initiative at http://www.amethystinitiative.org/article/view/21723/1/3831.

4. Educate yourself on the issue by reading up on opposing views at http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/debating_the_issues/.

RLC member Michael Mikkelsen has started a campaign to lower the drinking age in the state of Missouri. The initiative, Missouri 18 to Drink, will appear on the ballot in November 2008. Activists in other states can follow Mr. Mikkelsen’s lead.

At the Missouri Secretary of State’s website, it warns: “This proposal would cost state and local governmental entities an estimated $50 million in federal transportation funds, and generate an estimated $6.91 million in state sales taxes, $1.89 million in state excise taxes, and $4.10 million in local sales taxes.” Where is the provision warning Missouri residents of the tremendous harms of ignoring the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Alcohol prohibition ages are much lower in most other countries. Federal involvement in the issue, as in most other issues, has not helped solve the quandary of alcohol abuse.

When current law is not working, it’s time for a change.  A vigorous debate on the issue would do us some good, and that’s all the Amethyst Initiative is encouraging.

Amendment 2 will be on the ballot in Florida this November. In California, Amendment 8 will be on the ballot. Both of these initiatives will be a setback for equal rights. The Florida initiative would ban marriage for gay and lesbian couples, as well as all civil unions and state-recognized domestic partnerships. In California, Amendment 8 would eliminate same-sex marriages, which have been legal since June.

RLC member Terry Hamilton, president of the California Log Cabin Republicans, is working with a newly formed group called Republicans Against 8 to fight Amendment 8. In 1978, Governor Ronald Reagan opposed Proposition 6, the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay and lesbians from teaching in public schools. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is standing with Republicans Against 8.

In Florida, RLC-endorsed candidate for State Senate, Dean Santoro, joined the Miami Log Cabin Republican group at an anti-Amendment 2 event recently held. “Amendment 2 is a drastic and un-American measure aimed at dividing Americans and taking away basic fundamental rights,” according to Log Cabin-Miami President Robert Watson. “Good Republicans … understand there is nothing conservative about amending the state constitution to prevent loving, committed partners from caring for one another.”

Dean Santoro, right, Republican for State Senate, with two other event goers.