Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Defending New Hampshire Public Education
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
NewsViewsBlues- Arnesen
Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Jackie Cilley
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Matthew Hancock
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster
NH-Senate
- D4: David Waters
- D5: David Pierce
- D9: Lee Nyquist
NH-Executive Council
- D2: Colin Van Ostern
- D4: Chris Pappas
- D5: Debora Pignatelli
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
Hold Fast
Institute For Policy Studies
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
(Thank you for the detailed write-up! - promoted by William Tucker)
As you know, the NH House Judiciary Committee just voted 11-6 in favor of repealing marriage equality. Of course, the amendment to HB 437 adopted by the Committee is not, as far as I know, available online yet, and I am a lousy typist. So here are just a few of the coming attractions from the Worse Than Civil Unions Bill. (And thanks to Dean Barker for the extremely apt handle.)
Of course, the worst part of the bill is that it repeals marriage equality, and actually takes rights from NH citizens. But there is so much more in the bill to hate. And maybe even some to...well...laugh at.
Aside from the repeal itself, here is the language I find the most offensive.
Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.(Emphasis added.)
So not only will this bill marginalize our lesbian and gay families, but also families with single parents, childless couples, infertile couples, adoptive parents, foster parents, and loving stepparents. If your family does not look like their narrow picture of what a family is, watch out. My hope for every child is to be welcomed into a stable and loving family. I also know that every one of us knows at least one set of biological parents who should not be entrusted with the care of a gerbil, let alone a child. Biological parenthood does not, of itself, guarantee good parenting or a stable home, no matter how much we change a statute to favor it.
And c'mon, folks, do we really need to use the word "copulation" in the statutes as a purpose for marriage? Really?
When he introduced the amendment, Representative Bates stated that it reinstated the civil unions that were in place in NH prior to the enactment of marriage equality. Except there were a few differences. Okay, so what are the differences?
The original civil union legislation was enacted to give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities already bestowed on opposite sex couples. The Worse Than Civil Unions bill defines a civil union as "
a contractual agreement that provides reciprocal benefits and obligations to the parties to the agreement."
I have no idea why we need legislation to accomplish this. Consenting adults already have the right to enter into contracts. Same-sex couples have decades of experience with relationship-by-contract. It doesn't work. So why would anyone actually want that?
Which brings us to the issue of who may enter into a civil union. We are told the Worse than Civil Unions Bill is actually better than the old civil union statute because it allows heterosexual couples to have one of these arrangements. Can't you just see the crowd of heterosexual New Hampshire residents storming the State House to demand access to their very own second class relationship? No, me neither. The one thing that everyone agreed on at the long-ago hearing on this bill was that the word "marriage" matters: it is the gold standard.
But there is more! We were told that brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children will now be allowed to have these Worse Than Civil Unions. If any reader has EVER heard any NH resident ask for that, will you please let me know? A late amendment to the amendment also allows people who are STILL married to one person to have a Worse than Civil Union with someone else, as long as they are legally separated from the person they are still married to. What is THAT about? I really want to hear from anyone wanting one of THOSE. Seriously.
And now that I am re-reading the text of the amendment, I don't even see where it specifically restricts civil unions to only two persons. There is one passing reference to "either" party, but the other references are just to "the parties," without stating specifically that there is a limit of two. I might have missed it, but if not, how ironic that the folks who have been yelling for years that marriage equality will lead immediately to polygamy may have gone and created "polygamy light" all by themselves.
And the Worse Than Civil Unions Bill is such a model of internal consistency.
The amendment does say that
[t]he parties who enter into a civil union pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations that apply to parties who are joined pursuant to RSA 457, except as specifically waived by the parties to the agreement or as specifically excluded by the legislature.(Emphasis added)
I wonder what the exception means? Well, before we even get to this provision, we have to wade through this:
I. Many adults are parties to various kinds of domestic relationships other than marriage. Some of these relationships are intended to provide mutual support and responsibilities. Those involved in such caretaking partnerships may desire recognition of their status by the state to gain access to benefits typically reserved for husbands and wives.
Yup, it's always been just about the benefits.
II. Inclusive civil unions are intended to address the needs of these adults for practical benefits in matters such as hospital visitation, property, and support obligations. Inclusive civil union agreements provide the benefits, rights and responsibilities that most clearly address needs concerning adult caretaking and affection.
So what about if you have kids? Oh, right. That never happens.
III. We realize that the default contract appropriate for these nonstandard relationships may be different from that which has arisen to address the unique realities of opposite sex unions in marriage; by creating a distinct and separate status, parties to civil unions can more easily petition the legislature to address their specific needs as they arise.
Let me see...so a Worse that Civil Union is just like a marriage, except that it is not like a marriage at all? My take, and I have, by now, sat through many, many hours of public testimony and received thousands of emails over the last five years, is that many of our citizens did indeed ask the Legislature to address their specific needs. They wanted equal access to state sanctioned civil marriage, and the Legislature provided it. The people who are currently petitioning the Legislature are those who want to take it away again.
What about the same-sex couple who already have a valid NH marriage? Good news!
Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.
But wait! Before we got to that part, it said,
No court or administrative body shall construe or consider this legislative action as evidence of a public policy which would recognize any same-sex relationship as a marriage or would otherwise entitle same-sex couples to that status.
So which is it? Beats me. And don't even ask what happens to couples from outside NH who came here and got married, and boosted our economy by leaving some cash behind. I have no idea what their status will be if this bill is passed.
And then there is the section titled Religious Liberty. I would transcribe it, but I am too tired. Suffice it to say that although a person with a civil union is entitled to all the rights of a married person, no one can be penalized for refusing to treat as valid any civil union if that would violate their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. So people only have to treat a civil union as valid if they want to? And the drafters of this amendment apparently don't care that this provision also conflicts with RSA 354-A 10.
Might there be unintended consequences? Hmmm...let's see, if I have a civil union with my sister, and she dies without a will, do I inherit under the intestacy statute as her sister, or as her spouse? What about the rights of her children with her current husband from whom she will have to legally separate before she and I civilly unionize? Oh, wow, I can just see the potential for litigation there.
I have a hard time deciding whether to scream or just ...laugh.
