Feb. 17 Public Hearing to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Add HB 569 to the list (0.00 / 0)

The email I got about the scheduling said we would be hearing HB 569, the one on domestic unions, on that date as well.

Here is a fact that should help you to fight a little longer.
Things that don't actually kill you outright make you stronger.

Piet Hein, Grooks

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 20:16:45 PM UTC

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

William, the description 'to re-establish civil unions' is not very accurate IMHO (and as a co-sponsor, who helped craft it, I am in a position to have an informed opinion)

You could say 'to replace all marriages with domestic unions' accurately, but that also doesn't quite describe it 100%.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:10:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be in a position to have an informed opinion (4.00 / 1)

does not guarantee that one achieves such.

William and Lucy might vouch for that.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:27:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I confess to not having studied this one in detail before. So HB 569 domestic unions are just like today's marriages (legally), and the new "marriage" is an optional religious/cultural ceremony without any legal standing?

"Politics ain't beanbag" - Finley Peter Dunne

---

by: William Tucker @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:58:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

almost (4.00 / 1)

HB569 replaces the word "marriage" with the phrase "domestic union" in all state laws.  Thus, going forward, the state would no longer issue marriage licenses, they would issue "domestic union" licenses which are legally equivalent.

The difficult part is the bill adds a statement that domestic unions should be considered marriages for purposes of federal law.  I'm not sure if that would hold up in court or not (I'm not a lawyer).

Another problem is the headache that it would add for businesses who are already having to deal with differing marriage laws, civil unions, domestic partnerships and reciprocal beneficiaries laws set up in different states.  It's becoming almost impossible for a national company with employees in multiple states to manage their policies and benefits.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, yes (4.00 / 1)

Rereading your statement, you are correct.  The word "marriage" would have no meaning under state law except that domestic unions would be associated with federal marriage laws.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:08:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Marriage becomes a religious term, so Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, Mormons, Muslims, and anyone else can define it as they see fit, and they can all disagree without us having to write a one size fits all law about it, annoying some people to the point where they feel the need to spend money and time electing people to change it to suit them better.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:16:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm skeptical (4.00 / 5)

I don't think the opposition to marriage equality can be resolved with semantics. And I don't think marriage "becomes" a religious term just because the legislature says it is.

"Politics ain't beanbag" - Finley Peter Dunne

---

by: William Tucker @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:32:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It won't (4.00 / 4)

The real problem is that people who are anti-gay don't want gay people to accepted as being the same legally, socially or morally as non-gay people.  They will fight to maintain a difference legally and socially regardless of what words are used.  That's the actual root of the "marriage" problem.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:49:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in my experience (0.00 / 0)

Asking the number of people I have, who approve of this, I think you'd be quite surprised how acceptable this is to some of the people who would otherwise fight that fight.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:55:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So after years of accusing gays of being out to destroy marriage (4.00 / 10)

They will happy destroy marriage rather than have gays participate in it?  I'm not surprised.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:59:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree that marriage is a religous term (4.00 / 3)

The word marriage has a secular meaning (not just a legal meaning) that may or may not include a religious component.  Most non-religious people consider themselves to be married and most religious people would consider those couples to be married as well.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:37:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse (0.00 / 0)

'Marriage' will mean different things to different people.  It won't be solely a religious word, as you point out.  Atheists, Agnostics, etc can get 'married', be it in a Vegas style Chapel or any other ceremony they wish...

My point was that most of our friction today comes  from those who insist that their definition of the word is the prevailing one that should be used by everyone else.  That at least half of those folks also mostly happen to be religious might be a big coincidence.

'Marriage' won't be a 'legal' word, 'domestic union' will describe the legal state of people who are together. (My initial preferred choice was 'Domestic Partnership', not everyone liked that)

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:52:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stay out of my marriage, please (4.00 / 8)

We have a one size fits all law: marriage.  The law doesn't force a religious group to perform marriages contrary to it's beliefs. That works. Leave it alone.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:52:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would happen (0.00 / 0)

to the 1000+ couples who have been married under the present law, if any of these bills were passed?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 20:44:58 PM UTC

Preexisting marriages are safe (0.00 / 0)

HB437: Still married.  No new same sex marriages at all.
HB443: Still married.  No new same sex marriages at all.

HB569: All marriages (same sex OR male/female) are converted into domestic unions during 1 year window, just like all civil unions were all converted into marriages a few years ago.  No new 'marriages' are performed by the state for anyone (male/female or same sex), just domestic unions for everyone, including people who aren't eligible to get married now, including brother/sister, sister/sister, uncle/nephew, etc.  Domestic Union is not about sex, it's about your living arrangements, and the rights/responsibilities of doing so together.  Anyone who wishes can get 'married' (a ceremony) by whatever Church/Religion/Chapel/etc they wish to do so (or not).

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:27:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Safe." (4.00 / 4)

I guess Rep. Cohn means, "protected under the current whim of my gang."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:32:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually agree with you (0.00 / 0)

I want to solve this to bring stability to the situation.  Having constant legal arguments suits nobody nor justice.

My hope with HB569 is that we not only find a solution that does that, but that pressure is brought to bear on the Federal side of the issue, pushing out bad laws like DOMA as well.

Marriage licenses started as a form of racist control, I'd like to remove them from our vocabulary entirely.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:24:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't believe that's true. (4.00 / 2)

"Marriage licenses started as a form of racist control."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:51:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do the research. (2.00 / 2)

Wikipedia says it, and you'll find it accurate about this if you look into it.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:56:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not acceptable (2.00 / 4)

Cite a primary source or (how to say it nicely) SHUT UP.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:00:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Learn to use Google, elwood (0.00 / 0)

I've found dozens of independent sources to verify this so far. If you wish to argue it, find me one credible source who disputes it.  Please.  I couldn't. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, since I plan on using that fact in testimony against HB437 and HB443.
As far as as 1741 in North Carolina, anti-miscegenation laws were backed by marriage licenses.  

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:28:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bullshit. (2.40 / 5)

This is the 3rd oldest trick in the book.

"I've got 23 sources! Dispute them!"

"ohhh, you argued against 17 and 12! That's not where I base my argument."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:33:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my take, Brian - (0.00 / 0)

You are trying to win points with as many sections of the political spectrum holding power as you can.

Go for it.  

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edit: Brian and Putney. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 00:26:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll clarify (4.00 / 4)

"I find your comment to be rude or unbecoming."

It's just not good netiquette to shout "SHUT UP" at someone because you disagree with them.

I agree with you on the point that you were trying to make.  Early marriage records were kept for many reasons including transferring ownership of land and property.  While racism and other issues were sometimes mixed in, it was not "started as a form of racist control" in my opinion.

My issue is only that when we start down the path of shouting, we are no longer having a debate.

---

by: brianrater @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 22:32:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From "Getting Started": (0.00 / 0)

Rating a Comment

You have the ability to rate the comments of others.  If you read something particularly useful or insightful, you may give the author a 4 or Excellent rating. On the other hand, if you feel that a comment was written whose sole purpose is to degrade the conversation or be intentionally abusive, you may choose to give it a 0 or Troll rating, a substantial number of which will cause the comment to be hidden. A significant number of troll ratings may also result in the account being banned. Note: Troll rating a comment simply because you disagree with it is considered ratings abuse and is grounds for banning the user.

The rating system is not an invitation to become an etiquette policeman.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 23:08:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

I should have just posted a reply.

---

by: brianrater @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 15:24:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have stability (4.00 / 4)

It is your colleagues who want to create instability.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:55:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stability is when you have a stable situation (0.00 / 0)

We have an unstable situation, with unhappy people on all sides.  The pro-equality forces are dealing with Federal problems like DOMA as a result of passing new laws here, and the anti-equality forces are geared up to push back.

Exactly how do you define 'Stable', Kathy, because it certainly doesn't seem that way to me?

I'm looking for a solution that the most people will accept for the best stability in the long term.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:01:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Unhappy people on all sides." (0.00 / 0)

"The people on the other side, they're unhappy because we want to hurt them."

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 00:11:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No you aren't (4.00 / 3)

You are looking for a way to appease your Republican colleagues instead of telling them to get over it. Some causes are worth fighting for.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 00:39:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kind of quixotic (4.00 / 1)

You're fighting for the right to force religious people (via the government) to recognize marriages they don't want to recognize.

The alternative that Seth is proposing would allow everyone to recognize whichever marriages he/she chooses. Gay people can get married. Anti-gay marriage people can go along believing whatever the heck they want.
Most people, as far as I can tell, would consider the fight won at that point.

I don't understand why you think that extra step-- forcing other people to accept lifestyles against their moral views-- is worth fighting for. It sounds like you want to fight just to antagonize people at this point.

Yes, I think anti-gay marriage folk are wrong on this issue.
But I also think Marxists are wrong on issues, and I have no desire to use the government to fight their beliefs. It just seems kind of... pointless, really.

I mean, surely there are better things to worry about. Like, say, the economy, for example. ;-)

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 05:32:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Logic fail. (0.00 / 0)

You're fighting for the right to force religious people (via the government) to recognize marriages they don't want to recognize.

I hereby withdraw my consent to the state's recognition of your right to pass judgment on other people's relationships.

(See what I did there?)

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 05:47:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Logic fail. (0.00 / 0)

You withdraw your consent, eh?

Well, I guess it would be a good idea to pass HB569, which gets the government out of the business of regulating my right to pass judgment.

That way, you can withdraw your consent all you want (freedom) and I can still judge all I want (more freedom).

Brilliant!

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 08:53:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You completely missed the point of that. (4.00 / 3)

How about gay couples and everybody else live their own lives as they please (freedom) and you think whatever you want (freedom) but don't try to force your opinion on things that are none of your business into public policy (respecting freedom)?

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 20:29:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's called freedom. Your acceptance is irrelevant. (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand why you think that extra step-- forcing other people to accept lifestyles against their moral views-- is worth fighting for.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 05:52:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You will be assimilated and enjoy the freedom of the Borg. (0.00 / 0)

Freedom is letting people do what they want. That's what HB569 does, as far as I can tell.

Gay couples can get married? Check.
Freedom.

Those opposed can refuse to acknowledge these marriages? Check.
Freedom.

Your policy preference clearly has one fewer freedom embedded in it. Deny it all you want, but your position is incontrovertibly less freedom-friendly, and you only lose credibility by making the argument.

If you want to convince me to adopt your view, you should stop freedom-baiting me (it'll never work, I promise) and instead give me an argument that makes sense.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 08:44:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In what way does the current law force someone to accept our marriages? (4.00 / 3)

You could argue the employers have to recognize marriages, but changing the word "marriage" to "domestic union" doesn't change that.

---

by: brianrater @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 14:04:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It has the force of law behind it, (0.00 / 0)

and that really seems to bother people who oppose gay marriage.

I honestly don't see the point of the government controlling marriage in the first place, which seems to be the hang-up here.

As far as I can tell, the only reason to support it is either
a) to force gay marriage down anti-gay marriage people's throats, or
b) to force straight-only marriage down gay marriage advocates' throats.

The whole thing seems pretty silly. Reminds me of the milk vs. cider debate.

It just seems obvious to me that the mature thing to do is to stop trying to harass people who disagree with you, and let people do whatever the heck they want with their own marriages.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 17:30:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's About Equality (4.00 / 2)

I think the debate is all about equality, and that's certainly not silly.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 20:15:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK. (0.00 / 0)

I agree that equality is important, and that it's relevant to the debate, though I'm still leaning against the state marriage position.
I'll try to think through my position better so that I can make this intuition clearer. (Or maybe change my mind, if things go that way.)

Mostly, though, I'm grateful that you're being honest enough to talk about equality instead of freedom. Thanks.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 05:47:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Constitution of the United States: (4.00 / 1)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 07:40:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If there aren't any marriage laws, (0.00 / 0)

they obviously can't be enforced unequally.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are marriage laws in all 50 states (4.00 / 1)

and about 45 of those states enforce them unequally.

That's not how we do it in New Hampshire. Live Free or Die.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 20:50:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not making sense (0.00 / 0)

You sound like you don't understand the concept of the bill.

HB569 entirely REMOVES marriage from government jurisdiction. Bam. Gone. Marriage laws, if this passed, logically could not be enforced unequally-- because there wouldn't be any laws in the first place (and thus no enforcement).

It then replaces marriage in the government tax and legal bureaucracies with "domestic unions", which any two people (above the age of consent) can apply for.

So everybody is free to do what they want with their marriages, and everybody is free to enter into a legal domestic union with whomever they want.

This is actually more equal than any other state that I know of, because there are no restrictions whatsoever. You could get a domestic union with your sister. (You could even marry her if you'd like, but I wouldn't recommend it.) With a friendly roommate. With whoever.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 06:49:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hooey (4.00 / 4)

This law obliterates marriage. It says, no new marriages will be established. And, if you are perfectly happy to be in the marriage you entered into before the whackos took over, tough - the government will end your marriage and turn it into a "domestic union". This is ridiculous, and a very large intrusion by the governmnet into marriage. NH law is perfectly fine right now, treats everyone equally, and permits people to either have a civil ceremony, a religous ceremony, or something in between.




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 13:08:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still not making sense (0.00 / 0)

It does not obliterate marriage. It removes it from government oversight.

It does not say no new marriages will be established. It says none will be established by the government.

It will not end your marriage, except with respect to the government. (It is my understanding that most people don't consider the government to be a partner in their marriage, so this should be OK.)

Since the government is running marriage right now, it's ridiculous to complain that a law is a government intrusion into marriage. That makes as much sense as talking about a government intrusion into welfare, or a government intrusion into foreign policy.
Not that it matters anyway, because this is a misguided appeal to my libertarianism, and I'm not a libertarian.

NH law does not treat everyone equally now. It gives useful tax and legal privileges to people in romantic relationships, but not to other pairs of people. There's no logical reason these two should be connected.

Be fiscally responsible: nhecon.blogspot.com

---

by: Will May @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 18:30:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, we get it (4.00 / 1)

the word from randville is: in order to end gummint interference in your marriage, the gummint must dissolve your marriage.

Tell me, how much is gummint interference to cure gummint interference going to cost NH tax payers?

How many jobs will be created? How will spending money on this unnecessary gummint interference cut spending, reduce taxes, and reduce the state budget?  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 19:57:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong again (4.00 / 1)

Here is what the bill says with respect to marriage:

No new marriages shall be established on or after January 1, 2012. Two consenting persons who are parties to a valid marriage entered into prior to January 1, 2012 pursuant to this chapter may apply and receive a domestic union certificate under RSA 457-B, provided that the parties are otherwise eligible to enter a domestic union and the parties to the domestic union are the same as the parties to the marriage. Such parties may also apply by January 1, 2013 to the clerk of the town or city in which their marriage is recorded to have their marriage legally designated and recorded as a domestic union, without any additional requirements of payment of fees, provided that such parties' marriage was not previously dissolved or annulled. Upon application, the parties shall be issued a domestic union certificate, and such domestic union certificate shall be recorded with the division of vital records administration. Any marriage shall be dissolved by operation of law by any domestic union of the same parties to each other, as of the date of the domestic union stated in the certificate.

No marriage. Over. Done. Finito. Abolished. Say byebye.
 



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 19:57:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the UL coverage, Kathy (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad you're helping to spread the word about this bill.  I'm sorry you're ignoring the facts, especially since myself and Will and others seem to pretty clear on the actual effect of this bill.  But the biggest problem of any bill, and especially bills that change long established patterns in government, is getting people to notice it and think about it, and you've been helpful in that regard, so I thank you.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:51:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We do not have stability - we have a status quo (4.00 / 4)

My marriage could theoretically be non-existent by the end of this term.

How is this stable?

---

by: Putney Swope @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 00:33:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some have stability (0.00 / 0)

The heterosexuals have stability, the glbt each year are threatened by terrorist Taliban-like folks, aka, Mr. Bates & Co.

---

by: mevansnh @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:47:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even that stability is in danger (4.00 / 5)

There is a bill to forbid people from getting divorced if they have children under the age of 18.  I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't at least as much support for that as there is for repealing marriage equality.

I've been to many, many marriage equality hearings over the last 1 1/2 decades.  One common theme throughout is that all of the world's troubles can be traced back to the government "allowing" people to get divorced instead of forcing them to stay married.

If the social conservatives get a blank check to rewrite the laws, no one will be safe from their regulation of our private lives.  We are all in this together.

---

by: brianrater @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 14:12:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is more (4.00 / 2)

HB443 would also ban all employers from offering Domestic Partnership.

It contains the following statement:

Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

Also, I strongly agree with Seth - the statement that HB569 would reinstate civil unions is wrong.  Note the HB569 is incompatible with the other two bills.  It can't be passed without modification along with one of the others because they rewrite the same laws to say different things.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotta regulate that damn free market! n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:38:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The goal of HB569 (4.00 / 1)

is to take the entire question of marriage (of whatever sort) off the table for good (no matter who is in charge), with a solution all sides can accept even if it's not their first choice, guaranteeing equal rights for everyone all the time, as well as respecting everyone's religious beliefs about 'marriage', whatever they feel about it, even if incompatible with someone else's beliefs.

I don't see that the other bills are at all compatible with this approach, and I'll be speaking against both of those other bills as unconstitutional under Article 2.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:55:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How will that fly (4.00 / 2)

with heterosexual couples whose unions were confirmed by say a Justice of the Peace and consider themselves "married".  Will they accept the idea that they are no longer "married" but just living in a domestic union?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:50:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Straight couples who were married in a church (4.00 / 3)

won't like Seth's bill to have the state rejigger their union either.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:54:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt that it will (4.00 / 2)

For years, people have been saying "get the government out of the marriage business".  However, I suspect that telling young brides that they will be getting a "domestic union" license instead of a marriage license could result in bloodshed.

I've always considered this notion to be something that was well intended, but likely to be highly unpopular.

Seth, correct me if I am wrong about this, but I have always assumed that people who support this idea do so because they think that it will appease both sides of the marriage equality issue.  Is that correct, or is there some completely different reason?  It seems like this has only come up since marriage starting being legal for gays and lesbians.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 21:58:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's just one aspect... (0.00 / 0)

The prime sponsor is a Baptist minister who feels Church and State have been pushed together too much.

I'm a fan of getting unwanted government out of people's lives and don't have a marriage license for that very reason - live what you believe.  

I've talked to folks on all points in the spectrum, and gotten good responses from ultra religious folks, GLBT activists, and even just folks on the street.  The idea of this was there long before same sex marriage was legal anywhere, but it has helped this approach make more headway since social conservatives prefer this as allowing them their own beliefs still (which redefining marriage, in their eyes, doesn't)

And to be clear: there will be no 'license'.  There will be a certificate, just like a business partnership filing, stamped by a clerk upon payment of a registration fee.  You are asking nobody's permission (not a license!), you are only registering your relationship in exchange for the bundle of rights and responsibilities you get as a result of this.

And most young brides will still have a ceremony of their choosing with all the pomp and circumstance, so they won't care, they won't see anything different beyond the name of the paper, and the lack of words in the ceremony 'vested in me by the State'

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:11:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

This gives me a better perspective.  I can see where you are coming from and I have heard support from across the political spectrum.

You said "There will be a certificate, just like a business partnership filing, stamped by a clerk upon payment of a registration fee." That seems intellectually like a good idea, but decidedly unromantic.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:31:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is why you'll still want a ceremony... (0.00 / 0)

The business of the state is unromantic.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:29:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you look to Europe... (0.00 / 0)

this isn't a very radical idea there at all.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:25:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be honest, Seth, (0.00 / 0)

I, for one, rather like the concept. On the surface it appears to resolve many issues for many groups. Perhaps it would be a way to dump DOMA on the federal level.  

---

by: mevansnh @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:34:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree on that particular point. It's the American context that's the problem with your proposal. (0.00 / 0)

I do hope you remember this conversation, though, the next time Republicans scoff at liberals' suggestions that there are things we can learn from our friends across the pond.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've had the audacity to suggest that even Massachusetts is correct sometimes (4.00 / 1)

That didn't go over well.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:31:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In Germany, (4.00 / 2)

they have a mandatory civil ceremony with an optional religious one in a church/mosque/synagogue. That is still known as Ehe (marriage).

Germany has a separate designation for same sex couples, known as Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft (registered life-partnerships). Originally, these had some, but not all the rights of married couples. Then the German version of SCOTUS ruled they must be given all the rights of married couples. But not the name.

So far, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Sweden have marriage equality nationally.

A bill to change marriage at this point is a red herring.  What we have in NH now is fine. We should let it stand.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:04:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You left off Spain (0.00 / 0)

Also, Israel won't issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples (because they have state-sanctioned religious marriages only), but will honor marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples elsewhere.  In practice, gay and lesbian couples go to Spain, get married, and return home.

Also, in Mexico, gay and lesbian couples can get a marriage license in Mexico City that will be honored anywhere in Mexico, effectively making marriage legal there as well.

---

by: brianrater @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:19:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In theory, I think it would make sense for the state not to judge the validity of any kind of life partnership (4.00 / 2)

What bothers me about HB569 is that it comes out of an attitude that something must be done about same-sex couples being able to marry, as if that were a problem rather than an exercise of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore, the word "marriage" is too integral to participation in so many other institutions, particularly those created by the Congress, for one small state to make the leap of getting rid of it.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 22:37:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is a meaningless little tapdance (4.00 / 2)

that doesn't do diddly to ensure equality for anyone, unless all 50 states all do it, and the federal govt. changes the laws that govern the 1200 or so benefits that come from being legally wed.

Will the "domestically unioned" be eligible for Social Security widow/widower's benefits in the event of a partner's untimely demise? Federal law, of course, still only recognizes hetero marriages - but MARRIAGE is the key word. Not "unions."  And since when do Republitarians believe in unions?

I don't believe in passing laws to pander to the religious. This is not a theocracy, despite David Bate's dreams of a Tealiban.

It's just a load of linguistic spin - inequality perpetuated in sheep's clothing.  

Something tells me this isn't going to go over big with NH seniors. Good luck selling this to Grandma and Grandpa on their silver anniversary.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 12:12:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Accidentally replied to the wrong comment? (0.00 / 0)

I think you and I are making generally the same point.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 00:09:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll keep my marriage, thanks. (4.00 / 9)

HB569: All marriages (same sex OR male/female) are converted into domestic unions during 1 year window

This agnostic prefers to be married, not domestic unioned.

Instead of solving problems, this creates a huge, unhappy group of Granite Staters - those that don't want you monkeying with our marriages.

Kathy is correct elsewhere in this thread.  We've got a perfectly good marriage law that suits everyone right now, religious, non-religious, same-sex, non-same-sex.

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 23:26:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I got de-married once before (4.00 / 3)

didn't like it then, and I won't like it now.

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 04:33:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but this bill stinks (4.00 / 3)

First of all, it compares the committed partnership of two people who love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together to living with your brother.

Secondly, it will anger and energize straight married couples who otherwise wouldn't care about marriage equality to work against it. They will blame us gays for the very fact that this legislation is even being considered, thus making it more likely that we lose everything: marriage, civil unions, and the ability to ever work for those things again, as I believe this bill will actually garner support for a marriage amendment that otherwise would not have had a chance.  

If I didn't know better, I'd think that was the real intention of this bill.

"We now know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." - FDR

---

by: Granite Gnome @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 03:50:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

all of those campaign promises (4.00 / 5)

about how the GOP isn't interested in a social agenda during this session turn out to be just so much bullshit. The ONLY thing this legislature in is pushing their far right social agenda.

I'm an atheist, who was married in 2006 to another atheist, by a minister who read from Walt Whitman. We were married. We did not have a "domestic union." We were married, and married till death did part us.

Marriage has traditionally been a business transaction, not a religious event. Women were bought and sold, like blue ribbon heifers - with property or possessions frequently included to sweeten the deal. The religious argument is baloney. Couples in our state who wish to marry have a choice between a civil or a religious ceremony. This is a distraction being offered up by the teabaglicans who have absolutely no plans for how to move our state forward - they only want to move in reverse.

More in-nanny-tea from the Laser Beams.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 00:01:54 AM UTC

Leave it alone (4.00 / 2)

Supreme Court, 1967, Lovering Vs. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of Man."

Our society has bestowed immeasurable social value to the word marriage, regardless of legal benefits derived from the state. This bill would strip every taxpaying NH resident of this social dignity.

As a side, my husband and I were married in Canada - how would this bill affect our same-sex marriage?  

Running for State Rep 2012 in Hillsborough District 2
Aaron Gill, Deering: nhgill.com Twitter: Gill4NHStateRep

---

by: nhveedub @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 21:17:39 PM UTC

HB569 respects marriage greatly... (0.00 / 0)

Despite Kathy's insistence that it doesn't... under HB569, Aaron, your 'marriage' would remain intact, as would all 'marriages'.  The actual piece of paper behind it would change names, but the legal force behind it would remain intact.  I seem to recall the proponents of same sex marriage counsels those opposed that "this change doesn't affect your marriage, which is about your relationship with your partner".  The same advice applies.  

In a legal sense, 'marriages' will be replaced 100% with 'domestic unions' with the law defining them equally: a name change, yes, but also a recognition that the ceremonial solemnization is different from the civil matter, and that some religious practices disagree on the ceremonial aspects, and it's not the place of government to get involved in religion, or even need be involved in matters of secular ceremony.

As a same-sex couple, I believe that you'd actually be in a stronger position that before: instead of being in a minority class (having a union not recognized by other states nor the Federal government), the entire state of NH would be alongside you, lending you the support of the strength of numbers.  The new law would define, for the purposes of dealing with Federal law, 'domestic union' as equal to 'marriage' (the legal term used in other states), and now the entire state would be unified in insisting on that law being considered valid and binding by our Federal lawmakers and judiciary.

The 'married' won't go away, it's cultural... the difference is that it won't be a legal term, subject to one group or other defining it for themselves, and trying to subject others to their definition.  If those opposed to 'gay marriage' are fine with you (and them) all having a 'domestic union', and legally the two are identical, and you all consider yourselves 'married' in whatever ceremony you wish (or none), wouldn't it be nice to put this issue to rest for good?

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:12:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

stop running away (4.00 / 1)

from the question of how much this is going to cost the taxpayers of our state - and what the fiscal benefits are. Then kindly elaborate on how many jobs this is likely to create.

You and your fellow Republicans (Teabaglicans? Freebaggers?) were sent to Concord on the basis of what now appear to be a set of bogus campaign promises. So far the narrow, Tealiban social agenda seems to be all that interests this bunch of chuckleheads who are making a mockery of our state government.

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 13:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mumbo Jumbo (4.00 / 2)

What a lot of mumbo jumbo - with all due respect. You can't say, on the one hand, marriage remains intact, yet on the other, in a legal sense it will be replaced. Well, you can say it, but not without twisting yourself into a pretzel of illogic.  

Stop wasting your time and my money with this stuff. Maybe some of us should file a bill of redress complaining about the injury the legislature is causing NH taxpayers with all these bills that are unnecessary, or unconstitutional, or reckless, or irresponsible, or some combination thereof.    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 16:35:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy... (0.00 / 0)

For a lawyer, I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between using 'marriage' as a legal term, and 'marriage' as a non-legalistic personal term, which two individuals describe for themselves, and ceremonially use to solemnize their bond, based on their faith and belief about what 'marriage' is, for them.

I'm reminded of the old joke: What's the difference between a head of lettuce and a rhinoceros? (if you don't know, I'm not going to send you to the grocery store!)  If you don't know the difference between legal terms and general usage, I'm not going to ask you to represent me in court.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 10:13:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know the other guy is losing.... (4.00 / 1)

When he resorts to condescending instead of facts.  The law says, no marriage shall be established.  You sponsored the bill - you know what it says. You can't escape those inconvenient facts.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 11:37:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do know what it says... (0.00 / 0)

And you and I both know that's because the state will stop issuing licenses to that effect, replacing it with a domestic union registration, which will be legally equivalent to the fullest extent of the law.

If you think the language is unclear (and I'm the first to point out we went through multiple drafts), and have a suggestion to improve, I'm all ears.  I know we've gotten some good improvement suggestions that will become amendments to the language we had to signoff on originally.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 12:39:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seth, Seth, Seth... (0.00 / 0)

Your smear on Kathy's legal skills crosses the line into trollish behavior.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 12:24:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, she picked the fight with me in the UL (0.00 / 0)

Out of 9 Reps on the bill, including a prime sponsor, she named me explicitly, as part of her circus metaphor.  So she started it.

But I respect my status here as a guest, will wipe my feet and avoid getting mud on the carpets, and will refrain from such outbursts in the future.  Your point is made.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 12:32:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "Marry Your Sister Bill" is going nowhere n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 11:33:07 AM UTC