So the various townships in New Hampshire have mostly voted against a warrant article calling for the statehouse to allow a vote on same-sex marriage. This, you may recall, was instigated by the kook pews after New Hampshire became the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage…this time via the statehouse rather then the courts. You’d think that since legislators are accountable to the voters this would satisfy the wingers who keep bellyaching that the push for same-sex marriage is anti-democratic somehow, in that it has mostly relied on equal rights lawsuits. And never mind that a rule of law is essential for democracy.

But “the right of the voters to have their say” is just so much empty rhetoric that homophobes employ to dress up what is, at its core, a profoundly anti-democratic agenda. If you had any doubts about that, just read this little nugget in the Seacoast Online

A remarkable event occurred at the Greenland Town Meeting yesterday (March 13). More than six hours into the meeting (with no lunch break!) we finally reached the final item of business. Article 30: To see if the town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our state representative, state senator, etc. … “resolved: the citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines ‘marriage.'”

The article had been requested by petition and required a secret ballot. After four speakers, voting began. Voters turned in their voting cards, submitted their ballots and most of the voters then left the meeting. The town moderator then called the results: the “no” vote won. Apparently, Greenland voters trust their legislators to legislate and do not feel that gay marriage is such a threat to our society that we need to amend the Constitution to prohibit it.

But the opponents to gay marriage will stop at nothing. This is what happened next: One of petitioners asked the moderator to call for a reconsideration of the vote. Because the Town Meeting had not yet been officially closed, it is apparently legal to call for a re-vote, even though almost all the voters had left! However, just because something is legal does not make it right or fair. Proponents of this marriage amendment are so desperate they are willing to subvert the voters’ will to get their way.

Dig it. They waited until almost all the voters had left and then called for another vote. How much do you want to bet that this particular tactic was crafted by and sent out to the grass roots by NOM, or someone working with them. But at least in this one case, the tactic seems to have backfired…

How did it end? We then had the opportunity to vote on whether to reconsider, and all, except the petitioner, voted against reconsideration. Two people stated that they had voted for the initial resolution, but felt it was wrong to have a re-vote.

(Emphasis mine) Perhaps this opened a few eyes to the moral character of the anti-gay crusaders in their midst. The essential nature of bigotry is that it is a kind of cheating, a seeking of cheap advantage over others. The color of your skin, the land or ethnic group you were born to. Your gender. Your religion. Something, anything, you didn’t actually have to work to achieve, that you can demand respect for without having to have actually done anything worthy of respect. The essential nature of the bigot is of a cheat and a coward. So of course, rules don’t matter. Rules are for other people. Expect them to cheat, because cheats they are.

It would be interesting to see in how many townships where the vote was in favor of the warrant, which of those yes votes came on the second ballot, after the others had left the meeting and it was mostly just the true believers left in attendance.