A local group fighting discrimination proposes amended language should the “marriage petition” go to ballot.
On Tuesday, one day after the Londonderry Town Council unanimously rejected Representative Baldasaro’s “marriage vote petition,” local group Londonderry Protects Equality submitted its own petition with 52 signatures to the Town Council in order to meet a 2/2 deadline for anything pertaining to the March 9th elections. They are continuing to work on gathering more signatures.
Hearing on February 1st at Londonderry Town Hall “Let New Hampshire Vote” campaign opposition speaks out Photo by Robbie Feinberg
By Londonderry Town Charter the new group will have to follow the same rules. Present the 25 validated signatures as they have, if the town council rejects it it would not go on the ballot. Confusion exists on the ability to “amend” another groups warrant article at the time this was published, Londonderry Online News was awaiting clarification from the town manager Dave Caron. He said, “I have submitted it for review to the town Attorney I do believe it is not a valid petition.” When the opinion is provided we will publish the results here.
Once a properly worded petition was presented and rejected by the Town Council, the next step would be for 1% if that is rejected, then 5% would put it to a vote. Due to the time until the March election Londonderry Protects Equality would need a special meeting to vote.
We asked Lisa Drabik if she had submitted the petition to the Town Manager before gathering signatures. We also explained that the town offers this as a courtesy to make sure no legal errors exist. She said, “No, we were not aware of such a courtesy; Our quickly formed group of moms, students and other concerned residents is learning a lot through this process. We were operating under the assumption that we’d have to submit our petition by February 2nd and had no difficulty collecting 25 signatures between the public hearing on Monday and our delivery of the petition on Tuesday afternoon. Clearly, people are upset over the aggressive actions of Rep. Baldasaro. The Town Manager graciously took our petition in hand yesterday afternoon and said he would get back to us with the next steps, if any.”
Londonderry Protects Equality contends that the language on Representative Baldasaro’s “marriage petition” is vague and misleading. In the event that Representative Baldasaro and his supporters collect enough signatures to force this issue onto the ballot, Londonderry Protects Equality seeks to amend the language;
From
“Resolved: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines ‘marriage,’”
To
“Resolved: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire constitution that restricts the definition of ‘marriage’ and thereby limits a citizen’s right to marry the person of his or her choice.”
“We’ve spoken with some folks who signed the original petition who say its intent wasn’t fully explained to them. This issue has been disguised as a ‘voters’ rights’ issue from day one. Given the vagueness of the language and the confusion surrounding Representative Baldasaro’s petition, we would like the Town Council to amend the language of the petition to clarify what the voters are really being asked to vote upon. Should this go to the ballot, people need to understand that, by voting in favor of it, they are supporting changing our state constitution to 
remove equal rights from a specific group of citizens, essentially creating a second class of citizens in New Hampshire,” says Lisa Drabik, a founding member of Londonderry Protects Equality.
Lisa Fersch, another founding member of the group, adds, “After doing much research, I am fully aware of what this “vote on marriage” is about– but that doesn’t mean that every Londonderry resident who goes to the polls on March 9th understands what is at stake. The language should be clarified so that all voters can make an informed decision as to whether or not we want our government and constitution to be used to limit the rights of NH citizens.” Alicia Dooley, the third founding member of the group states, “Our ultimate hope is that Representative Baldasaro’s marriage petition does not make it to our March 9th ballot by receiving the signature of 855 residents. We’re in the middle of an economic crisis. The last thing we need to do is tie up our state legislature with a discriminatory movement, when they have real work to do.”
Londonderry Protects Equality started out as a small group of local mothers, and has grown into a larger group of families, students, and community members, gay and straight, all fighting to protect the equal rights of their neighbors and friends. Their mission is to educate people on the issue, and are working to gather information on economic impact, official bill language, timelines, and more.
Visit the organization at www.londonderryprotectsequality.com, or on their Facebook page, “Londonderry Protects Marriage Equality!” for further information including how to contact them.
For further information on “Let New Hampshire Vote” read our story “Representative Al Baldasaro to ask Town Council, recognize Marriage as One Man and One Woman”
Other related stories including many with comments include;
Representative Falling Short on Marriage Signatures
NH Democratic Party Calls For Resignation of Baldasaro
Students Organize Support for Gay and Lesbian Couples
Loading ...
![[popup]](http://www.londonderrynh.net/wp-content/plugins/shout-stream/popup.png "[popup]")
Interesting.
Why is it that hate is always infered with what the opposition has to say?
If they wish to try to make it less vague it should read. “Marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman”.
It is the goal of the original petition.
Correct Rob, the issue isn’t about civil rights. We already have a civil union law on the books. This is about changing the definition of the meaning of marriage. For thousands of years it meant between a man and a women. Same sex marriage fails that test.
Go anywhere in the world and ask what or who is in a marriage. The answer will be between a man and women. The gay community can protest all it wants but it will not change this definition. Common sense will see to that.
Passing this amendement will not remove the civil union law on the books. But we must defend the definition from the Orwellian though police!
I clicked on the Londonderry Protects Equality link; very interesting. Can someone tell me why none of the people behind that website are identified by name? Lots of references to “we,” but who, exactly, is “we”? They have posted the original petition with the names of all the people who signed that (“outing” them?), but they don’t indentify themselves by name at all. This is curious to me.
That petition wasn’t just posted on the LPE website – it was posted, and is still posted, on the town website http://www.londonderrynh.org (see the link “Marriage Petition to the Town Council”). Any reason? (Is it standard procedure for citizen petitions of this nature to be publicly posted?)
It is public record, I know we have asked for them in the past. I would say this is the first time I can recall the town posting it on its website.
The names I was given who put the site up was Lisa Fersch and a Liz Jameson. Does anyone know them and are they from Londonderry. Rumor has it that the Democrat Chair Ray Buckley is pushing this protest.
Now I have been known to be wrong once or twice.
Hi Rep. Baldasaro. I’m Lisa and I am a constituent of yours – a constituent who disagrees very strongly that you are representing my views when you spend time pushing for a vote to discriminate instead of focusing on the jobs and economic recovery that we need in New Hampshire.
I must say, it was a little unnerving that you would name me, one of your constituents, in a public manner like this. I would have preferred that if you had any questions or wanted to learn more about me and/or this group that you would have sent me an email through our website as listed in the article.
Since you’ve already done this, though, I thought I would take a moment to address some of the comments here regarding the group “Londonderry Protects Equality” that was started by myself and some friends. I will use the term “we” because we are working as a team to bring awareness to our town regarding this issue. We are moms who live in Londonderry. There is nothing political in our backgrounds other than being registered voters (and we are not all liberals). Our days are usually filled with play-dates and potty training and NOT politics. None of us had ever even heard the name Ray Buckley before until just recently when we heard his name mentioned in regards to the 1/20/10 Judiciary Committee video. I assure you that Mr. Buckley has absolutely no involvement with our group. Also, we do not know a Liz Jameson. She is not a member of this group.
With regard to the comments here of us not having our names on the website, we did not know that was a requirement. Our names are listed in the above article as well as well as on the letter that accompanied our petition to the town council. We feel that is enough. We are not trying to hide our identities but we do have families and small children to protect. Moreover, know that our group is has grown much larger than just the 3 of us, and several of our members do not feel comfortable sharing their names. Furthermore, I would like to point out that no names are listed on the ‘Let NH Vote’ website.
Yes, we did include a link to the petition that was initially posted on the town’s website. In our reference to the link, we did not say anything negative about the signers. We just asked our supporters who visit our site that if they know someone who signed the petition to perhaps engage in a conversation with that individual. Several of our friends have signed the petition and some have stated to us that they did not understand exactly what it was they were signing. This concerned not only us but others we know in the community. We did submit our own petition in order to fill in the information that was left off Rep. Baldasaro’s petition. In researching the Town Charter and NH law, we thought the Council could make some textual changes to the petition, and thought it was worth a shot to clarify what may appear on the ballot if Rep. Baldasaro obtains the signatures necessary to force it onto the ballot.
Our mission is to bring awareness and to help educate our friends and neighbors on the issue of voting on another citizen’s rights. We also want to let Londonderry residents who are in same-sex relationships know that our community supports them. We acknowledge that there are those who disagree with us. And those in disagreement have the right to voice their thoughts on the matter just as we have ours. Thank you for your understanding!
I see in the article above that Lisa Drabik, Lisa Fersch, and Alicia Dooley are identified as the three founding members of Londonderry Protects Equality. My only point is that I find it very curious that they don’t identify themselves on their website; I’m not sure why they wouldn’t, but the omission seems intentional.
Separately, LondonderryNH.net is “monetized by Google,” and this topic pulls in some rather interesting ads for other websites (in case anyone is interested in meeting “the hottest guys”).
If you would not mind, we have the google ad service set to family friendly. Once we have seen some inappropriate ads and blocked them. If you could send us the URL you were displayed we would be happy to block it. The Google people are rather smart, and not everyone is presented the same ads. We have not seen what you refer to in our office.
Say it isn’t so , Al.. LOL Welcome to the club. There’s lots of us.
“not everyone is presented the same ads” — maybe I’m the only pervert that’s seeing these ads.
I’ve sent you under separate cover the web addresses from the ads I’m seeing. Clearly, the smart people at Google key off of specific words, because the ads show up within this article, but not others on this site. Thank you for your help.
I just got a banner across the top too. You’re not the only getting google ads.
Thanks, Tammy; at least I know I’m not alone.
Google ads are part-and-parcel of this site, and I have no problems with that (ignore 99% of them, frankly). It’s the gay dating ads that prompted my comment.
Got them! Thank you, it may take a few hours for google to stop. Not only do they (google) look at the key words they look at the demographics of the readers. (More on that a the bottom of our advertise page) Plus they look at your interests then they select an ad. I am sure “A Resident” was not alone, the analysis Google makes is general. I did get the same ad when I clicked on the story directly to read the comments.
To others please send us the URL if you get something that you consider inappropriate.
While Google does not allow us to disclose what we make, readers that make valid clicks on the ads that interest them allow us to break even on the cost of hosting the site. With over 60,000 pageviews a month we are consuming a very high amount of bandwidth.
I love this town. 100+ people and the media show up to support gay marriage and then they all leave when the Workforce Housing ordinance is discussed leaving 10 people to fight to preserve the look of Londonderry. Maybe we should have called it Homosexual Housing if we wanted more public input.
This has nothing to do with the income of potential buyers or who might be living there. It has more to do with the Vista Ridge style complex that will now be allowed in the middle of residential areas. I don’t care if the people living there are millionaires. The bottom line is 300 unit apartment building should not be allowed in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Just so we’re all clear….our Town Council and Planning Board sold out the residents of Londonderry for the benefit of the developers.
I repeat…our Town Council and Planning Board sold out the residents of Londonderry for the benefit of the developers.
This point was never more clearer than Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting when Mr Farrell let it all be known that he was more interested in the developers being able to make a profit than following the wishes of the residents of Londonderry.
After watching 7-8 past Planning Board and Town Council meetings I saw plenty of residents voicing concerns against Workforce Housing yet not one comment in favor.
PS. Why no story on the Workforce Housing vote from Monday night? Keep sweeping folks…the rug is getting smaller and you won’t be able to hide much longer
You may have missed the “as it happened” breaking news Monday on the vote.
Breaking TC News:Workforce Housing Hearings. Vote to support planning Board unanimous support of Work Force Housing 4-0http://tiny.cc/IFb0J” rel=”nofollow”> http://tiny.cc/IFb0J 10:05 PM Feb 1st from web
If you need to read more on workforce housing until our next story you may be interested in;
Londonderry Fails to Meet State Mandate, 1000 Apartment Units Short
Londonderry Workforce Housing, Fact and Fiction
Workforce Housing Waits for a Full Board
Londonderry Workforce Housing up to Town Council
Up to 196 will have to wait for homes on Stonehenge Road
State Mandates Workforce housing in Londonderry
Planning Board, a Place to Live and a place to Work
A lighter look at workforce housing
Read “Hysteria Lane” by Jim Loiselle
Back in 1890 we had workforce housing right along side of some grand Victorian homes too. Mix Commercial, Retail, Residential and Office Space?
I thought the same thing – Sold Out. As an abutter to the “elderly housing” proposed on Stonhenge Rd, I received several notices from the town. I was surprised to realize that I probably wouldn’t be able to see the proposed development from my house. Now, it’s magically become “workforce housing” and, if the developer gets their way, will change the whole face of a neighborhood forever. I’m still not that close to it, but I am oppsed to this type of housing in residential neighborhoods. Many people spoke eloquently about the type of workforce housing that would blend in nicely with the neighborhoods in Londonderry. Their voices were drowned out by the constant talk of “fear of lawsuits”. It’s an enormous amount of “baloney”. I fear the loss of my property value and the exploding tax rate more than lawsuits.
If you want change, vote. Come to Town Meeting. If you don’t have the time or you’re not the type of person who wants public exposure by running for office – you can still vote! We have the power to vote on contracts, money spent, warrant articles, state representatives and numerous other things. I am still amazed at the small number of registered voters who actually go to the polls. You would think everyone’s happy ; yet, “gay marriage” gets a huge turnout. Where your money goes – not so much.
I am not opposed to gay marriage. However, I am amazed at the sneering behind speaker’s backs and the outraged reactions to people brave enough to express their opinions at Town Council.
You’re on TV people – you’re indignation and reaction to those who disagree doesn’t help your cause. It may have been a few people – but it was rude and obvious to all watching.
I heard last night at the school deliberative that Al had over 700 signatures.
Hi Kathy!
I have a question. I’m a little confused about deadlines. I read in the 1/4 minutes that that Al needed to have 5% of signatures by 2/4 in order to be on the March 9 ballot. After that, a special election would be held. On Rep. Baldasaro’s site it says he has until 2/15. And I read somewhere else (Derry News) that he has until 2/13. Somebody else mentioned 3/3. Would you be able to shed some light on the deadlines? Thank you!!
At the council meeting I heard that he had until the 6th. I don’t think at this point anyone has any idea what the real deadline date is. I am just as confused as all of you. I am also disappointed. No matter whatever your beliefs no one should be jerked around. Everyone has the right to process you can understand. It should be clearly defined. I’ll try to find an answer but town hall is closed until Monday.
Dave very clearly stated on Monday that the deadline was saturday 2/6…Hrm.
Chris you are correct. I re-watched the tape at the start Dave stated the 9th and then corrected that the petition must be at the town and the signatures verified by February 6th.
Don’t hold your breath though. The Town Council accepted the Workforce Housing ordinance based on the premise the numbers would be decreased from 24 units to 16 units at Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting and we all saw how that played out.
If our elected officials need something they will just find a convenient loophole or vague interpretation of the law to help their cause.
If Saturday rolls around and Al doesn’t have enough votes they’ll give him a 5 day extension based on the full moon clause. Only in Londonderry, can extensions be granted based on the gravitational pull of the earth and in relation to the position of the moon. If that doesn’t work they’ll find that signatures made in blue ink are counted as double compared to black ink
And we all wonder why the public has absolutely no trust in our Government.
Clearly the move to change the wording is yet another attempt to obfuscate and askew the original intent of Baldasaro’s petition. They are taking a play right our of the GLAAD (et al) political handbook. Ms. Fersch, is that also covered in Alinsky’s works, Orwell’s, or Cloward and Piven?? I forget…perhaps it is all of the above…?