Last week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed two pieces of legislation that, if made into law, will put New Hampshire at the forefront of the progressive movement ("N.H. House approves gay marriage, votes to repeal death penalty," March 26).
These actions are the latest in a progressive trend sweeping the nation: President Obama was elected by a sizable margin on a progressive platform, and states across the nation have been adopting more liberal polices; the past few months, for example, saw the decriminalization of marijuana possession in Massachusetts. It seems that there has been a national mandate for changing to a more open and liberal society.
Gay marriage and the death penalty are divisive issues that deal with two of the most basic and essential rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: those of life and the pursuit of happiness. Although we, as a nation, have won many victories in the fight for the equality of women, racial minorities and the disabled, we have yet to address homosexual rights, and even though we have attempted prison reform, we have yet to nationally acknowledge that even prisoners possess the most fundamental human right: life.
While many believe that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and woman, I think the collective moral consciousness of our nation is ready to see that any two people should have the right to love and marriage. And though proponents of capital punishment argue that those who take a life forfeit their own, I believe that more and more of us are coming to see that taking an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.
Although the political winds and national opinion may lean towards progress, there will always be those opposed to change. As reported by The Dartmouth, Gov. John Lynch, D-N.H., has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage, and that he will outright veto the repeal of capital punishment, should it pass in the New Hampshire Senate.
Although Lynch has not said for certain whether he would veto a gay marriage bill, it remains a disturbing possibility. If the Senate passes the two bills, and Governor Lynch decides to veto one or both of them, it will be an example of veto power being used unjudiciously.
The veto power has evolved throughout United States history as an essential tool in maintaining the balance of power among different branches of government. The legislature can approve judges and impeach, the judicial branch can interpret laws and declare executive action unconstitutional and the executive branch can veto bills and appoint judges -- every branch of government has a means to check the actions of the others.
Although Gov. Lynch would be acting within this framework of checks and balances if he were to veto the bills in question, I believe that he has a greater responsibility to uphold the current trend towards progress and equality.
We should fight to ensure that Lynch does not block the progressive movement in New Hampshire. If he chooses to veto either bill, it will be a smack in the face of the citizens who have petitioned their lawmakers for change. Whether or not Lynch personally agrees with gay marriage or the death penalty, he should take into account the recent political history of our nation, instead of merely acting as a conservative block.
Though change is in the air in New Hampshire and across the nation, it is still a fragile movement. A veto by Lynch, given the margins by which the bills were passed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, would most likely be a deathblow.
I hope Lynch takes advantage of the opportunity to become a part of the change that is spreading across the country.
