Same-Sex Spousal Unions: It's About Time. The Discrimination Has To Stop.

Welcome! Thanks for posting (4.00 / 2)

Rep. Splaine, it would be helpful to our discussion if you could briefly describe the differences between legislation being filed this session -- the ones that we've noticed, in addition to yours, are the Vaillancourt and Baxley bills.

(I would also be interested in your take on Sunday's Landrigan column.)

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:53:11 PM CST

I think that this is a classic example (4.00 / 1)

of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The problem as I see it is simply the fact that the noun "marriage" stands with one of its legs in law and another one in religious institutions.

If civil unions can allow real people to be afforded real rights in a country which espouses equal opportunity under the law, then I'm all for it.  I can wait for the M word to come along later (though, being straight, it's obviously easier for me to be patient).

One question that has popped up here and elsewhere that I'd be interested to get your input on (and thanks so much for dropping by with this very important topic):

Can civil union legislation get done this year, or are we looking at a year dominated by the funding issue.  Or to put it another way, do you think some in the legislature will be overly cautious in approaching this right away? 

(I personally feel that the Democrats have a responsibility to lead on issues precisely such as this, so that everyday people know clearly the difference between the two parties.)

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:08:58 PM CST

Thanks for Stoping by... (4.00 / 1)

We are happy to discuss this very important issue here at Blue Hampshire, we have been covering it extensively.

I really appreciate you coming here to talk with us about this.  I'm interested to hear the details of the various legislation that is going before the NH House this session. 

Also, what obstacles do you think still remain to passing Civil Unions legislation?  Do you think Governor Lynch will really push for yet another commission, only to avoid taking a stand on this issue?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:20:47 PM CST

obstacles (4.00 / 1)

One obstacle is going to be opposition from within the gay community.  These kinds of "unions" proposals are very divisive with some members of the community supporting them and others opposing them.  At this point, I'm not aware of any gay advocacy organization - state or national - that is supporting either of the non-marriage bills.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:30:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hmm... (4.00 / 2)

We've been thoroughly covering this issue on Blue Hampshire.  Through it all, I've been an advocate for Marriage Equality.  I've argued that while I would be supportive of Civil Unions legislation as a short term progress, we need to understand that only marriage would being full Equality.

I'm young.  I can afford to wait years for full Marriage Equality.  I could go on fighting for Marriage Equality legislation and oppose anything less on principle. 

It has been argued to me, however, that there are those who need some of these benefits today.  They cant wait for 20 years.  Who am I to fight against real progress for these people because its not the perfect solution?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 22:57:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would agree (0.00 / 0)

I would agree with you if we were talking about 20 years to get marriage equality.  We are talking about 2 to 5 years - the same time frame that "unions" will take.  There is very little difference in support between the two among the public.  If, however, we get "unions", then at best we are talking about an additional 10 years to get marriage.  At worst, we will never be equal because we will be "defined" to be unequal.

Look back at Rep. Splaine's original post.  It says clearly and repeatedly that if NH enacts some kind of "unions" bill then it will end legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.  I strongly disagree with that statement, but legislators who will be voting on this based on the bill's sponsor's assertions will believe that they have provided for equality.  How difficult will it be for us then to go back and say that this is not equality and it's not what we wanted?

The bottom line is that this should never have been introduced without discussing it with the community - not specifically me or any one organizaton, but a broad array of organizations in the state and nationally.

The gay community in NH decided a few years ago to pursue marriage instead of "unions".  It was well understood that "unions" may be easier to get, but the community felt that we needed to stand up for what we believe in. 

That decision was made after a series of meetings in which about 100 members of the community participated and expressed their feelings. Over 1,000 members of the community and supporters had been invited.  It wasn't advertised as a meeting to debate - it was advertised as a meeting to pull a group together to fight for domestic partnerships.  As an organizer of that meeting, I was surprised at the decision to go in a different direction, but I abided by it even though I disagreed at the time.

What right does Rep. Splaine or even a handful of legislators have to  have to pursue this without at least going back to the community first?

---

by: brianrater @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 03:24:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rep. Splaine's right to pursue this (4.00 / 2)

Like Representative Baxley's and Rep. Vaillancourt's, comes from running for election by all the voters in his community, with issues and platforms discussed openly: not from a private, closed, "invitation only" event.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 05:40:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

clarification (4.00 / 1)

The event was not "invitation only".  We had a mailing list of over a thousand individuals and organizations and we asked people to spread the word.  Anyone was welcome to come and participate.  Many participants heard about it indirectly through the many social groups.  Most of the people attending were people I had never met before.

---

by: brianrater @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:17:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree. (4.00 / 1)

I grew up in Massachusetts and there is a particular joy to the fact that we have real marriage equality there.  But I'm not giving up the huge advance represented by civil unions to hold out for that.

I'll look forward to hearing more about the proposals being made, and to doing whatever we as voters and bloggers and activists can do to support the passage of something really good.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:06:33 AM CST

I agree too (0.00 / 0)

I firmly support gay marriage, but these efforts to ban it are wedge issues designed to rally the GOP base and divide us. Let's fight for it, but not at the expense of stopping the war, a fairer tax system, protecting Social Security (and fixing the problem Bush correctly identified), supporting working people, and all our other core issues.

Civil unions are slightly offensive, but as a compromise, they may have to do for now, and I emphasize "for now."

---

by: JimC @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 14:13:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Spousal Unions" Further Defined (4.00 / 2)

The bills are not yet printed, so I don't know what the differences between proposed legislation will be.  And I'm still considering a variety of approaches on the legislation for Spousal Unions that I'll be sponsoring.  All bills will soon be "signed-off," at least by January 19th.  The details should be clear by then.

All bills, as you know, then go to a Committee for a public hearing, and are open to amendments.  I expect the discussions on all of the same-sex-related bills will be reviewed by the Committee for about a month, during which changes can occur.  It's all part of an evolutionary process.

The final form of any legislation would be clear by perhaps late February or early March, and after the House votes on something it would go into the Senate for the process to continue.  Often a bill is much different, sometimes totally, in final approved form than when introduced.

To be as specific as I can, the legislation I'm sponsoring currently will provide a process to get a certificate of Spousal Union, exactly the same as one gets a marriage certificate, from a town or city clerk.  All of the same RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, and OBLIGATIONS currently given in state law to a married man and woman would be given to the same-sex union.  The same responsibilities for divorce of the union would also be in force, as well as all the in-state financial and other legal benefits. 

In my judgement, although the word "marriage" would not appear on the certificate for purposes of same-sex unions, the partners would legally be "spouse," and they can refer to their union as a marriage.  Churches would not be required, of course, to perform any ceremony - - that is also the case in Massachusetts and everywhere else. 

Thoughts?

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 20:18:06 PM CST

Only marriage will ever be equal (0.00 / 0)

First you say "The Discrimination Has To Stop" and then you say that gays and lesbians should be governed under a different set of laws from everone else.  Which is it? 

Let's not fool ourselves here.  Spousal Unions, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships or whatever are not intended to be "equal" and they never will be.  If you really want equality then help us to fight for inclusion in the laws and legal system that already exists instead of asking the legislature to segregate us from the rest of society.

I for one am VERY offended by the entire idea of having to live under a different set of laws.  Rep. Splaine and I worked together to repeal just such a law only 7 years ago (restrictions on adoption and foster care). 

5 years ago, the community came together in a big meeting to discuss fighting for marriage vs. fighting for domestic partnerships.  I was on the DP side at the time, but the community clearly wanted to work for marriage instead.  That's what I've done and I've come to agree with that position.  It's a shame that you decided to introduce this bill without even discussing it with the community.

Why would you think that it's suddenly a good idea?  Anyone who looks at our nation's history of "separate but equal" laws knows such things are very separate and never equal.

Just because a separate law for gays is "intended" to be equal, it won't stay that way for long.  Look at Hawaii.  They created Reciprical Beneficiaries to provide some benefits to gay and lesbian couples and then proceeded to whittle them down to almost nothing over the next several years.

I for one don't want to be treated differently by the government.  I don't want to be governed by a separate set of laws.  It's a dangerous precedent.

I refuse to pretend that my marriage is something other than what it is.  Coming out was very difficult for me as it is for all GLBT people, but I'm out now and so is my husband.  We are not going to go back into the closet by pretending our marriage something that it's not.

People get used to gays and lesbians getting married very quickly when you give them the chance.  Most people in New Hampshire are fine with the state government issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as long as churches aren't forced to solumnize marriages that they disagree with.  http://www.nhftm.org...

The people of New Hampshire and the state legislature deserve more credit than you are giving them.  Give them a chance to do the right thing before you start compromising away the fundamental rights of an entire community.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:21:03 PM CST

Umm.. wrong. (4.00 / 1)

You're fighting the wrong battle, friend.

A Massachusetts marriage and a Vermont civil union are BOTH unequal to straight unions because the federal government refuses to recognize either.

That is where activists should be directing their efforts -- not at each other.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:30:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem with that (4.00 / 2)

You are quite right about the federal government being a problem.  However, the federal government is never going to be able to provide benefits if each state keeps creating it's own institutions and makes them all radically different.

Massachusetts has marriage.  Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey have civil unions.  California, Maine and the District of Columbia have Domestic Parnerships.  Hawaiim Vermont and New Jersey have Reciprical Beneficiaries.  Domestic Partnerships in California are almost marriage, while DP in Maine has very few rights or responsibilities.  Reciprical Beneficiaries are open to any two people, so you can be in this kind of "union" with your mother or your sister.

All of these are changing year by year and are difficult for even activists to keep up with.

Which would the federal government recognize as being "close enough to marriage"?  The federal government doesn't issue it's own marriage licences and never has.

By creating this patchwork quilt of different institutions, we've made it almost impossible for states or the federal government to recognize "unions" created by other states.

Marriage is the only universal currency.  Everone knows what it is and what it means.  It's easy for one state to recognize marriages from another state if they choose to do so.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:45:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disagree (4.00 / 2)

• Marriage is not a "universal currency," and gay marriage in Massachusetts is not the first example of that. The law that was used to discourage out-of-state same-sex couples from getting married in Massachusetts came from the days of anti-miscegenation laws in some states (not that long ago). Unions that are legal marriages in some states are child molestation in others.
  
• I don't believe "everyone knows what [marriage] means." Slight changes in wording seem to affect polling results on the subject. (See the UNH poll that talked about "civil marriage.")
  
• Variations like civil unions are no big problem for federal recognition. Quite the reverse: the feds had to go out of their way to NOT recognize same sex unions. A simple example rule we could adopt: if the state of residency gives partners a 'couple' tax status on its income tax, so does the federal government. (That leaves 'no income tax' NH and AK to deal with. A little discretion to the Commissioner, e.g. compare their marriage laws to other states, handles them.)
  

I hope you've had a chance to poke around in earlier discussion on the site. I believe we're nearly unanimous in supporting full marriage equality -- the debate here is the most effective way to move toward that, this session.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 22:42:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

keep this thread going! (0.00 / 0)

Great issue, great dialogue. I agree the federal government is the problem, but why? We'll it seem that it's the federal income tax (and other related taxation), how else does the federal gov't even have a say in the matter (Elwood, I know you'll know, cause I don't!).

I guess I'd like to see the federal governmant be agnostic than to have to get the entire country on board with this. In my mind you've got a few people on either side and a vast majority indifferent on gay marriage. While I think it's a no brainer to grant equality, I think maybe civil unions are the better option (I'd like to see marriage out of the legal vocab, let the religious conservatives have that), so I guess I'm not on board with the "universal currency" side as I feel like there is legal currency and religious currency. I'd prefer to focus on the legal side as it seems much more within reach.

---

by: ben @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 22:19:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

mistep in logic (4.00 / 1)

to clarify, I guess I'm onboard with "universal currency" (religious + legal = universal). I mean to say that I don't feel like convincing the religious side.

---

by: ben @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 22:28:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Other federal marriage issues (4.00 / 1)

The other area that I'm aware of is federal benefit programs: Social Security, VA, etc.

If I die my wife gets my monthly Social Security check.

If a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts or a civil union partner in Vermont dies, there is no such transfer.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 06:05:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

one other law I thought of after posting.. (0.00 / 0)

A spouse can not be forced to test testify against thier partner in federal court (unless the the courtroom dramas have lied to me).

---

by: ben @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:17:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They have (0.00 / 0)

It's a limited state granted right, IIRC.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:58:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually I think it dates to common law (0.00 / 0)

States may clarify or modify it, but I believe a "spousal privilege" to not testify is generally recognized without the need for recognition in state law -- like attorney-client privilege and clerical/confessor privilege.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 08:15:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but much like those cases (4.00 / 1)

It's more limited than shows indicate: it applies only to confidences disclosed by virtue of marriage, and I think it's application state to state varies.

I.e. if George Bush tells Laura he killed someone, that's protected, but if he walks in the house with blood on his hands, that's not. And if Bush tells Laura before they are married then gets married, no luck, but if he tells her while they are married and gets divorced that's fine.

I saw a show on it once.

You're right though, it does derive from common law, with state law and judicial history clarifying it. So perhaps it applies in federal cases too?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:37:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I should think (0.00 / 0)

that if George Gush told our Laura that he killed someone, he'd be impeached!

Oh wait, the other Laura...

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 13:33:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And regarding the state issue (0.00 / 0)

The neat thing about Splaine's proposal (if I understand it right) is that while there wouldn't be a marriage certificate as such, the Civil Union/Spousal Union would result in spousal status at the state level, governed under the same laws as my own heterosexual marriage...so it would get around the two systems problem...

I might be wrong. But if that were the case, does you objection still apply? It would give 100% legal status (in NH). After that it's only a small hop to change the name, but as Rep. Splaine mentions, there are people in desperate need of these benefits now... they can wait for the name, but not the legal status...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:36:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My objection would still apply (4.00 / 1)

"spousal unions" would still be under separate laws. 

Fundamentally, marriage is about love and family and everyone understand that.  That is what this is about.  Having gay and lesbian couples pretend that our relationships are just about benefits and convenience is counter-productive and dehumanizing.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 22:19:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, and thank you for coming (4.00 / 1)

I know you're an activist in this area, and if you can educate us, please do.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 21:38:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

Thanks.  I'm sorry if I sound stident, but I'm very angry about this.  I want to sit at the same table that everyone else sits at and not have to sit at a separate table because I'm gay.  It's just wrong.  It's even worse to claim that sitting at a separate table somehow puts an end to discrimination or makes me equal with everyone else.  I will never accept that.

Just to give you some background, I've been a gay activist for 12 years now.  During that time, I worked on the anti-discrimination law regarding employment, housing and public accomodations.  I was co-chair of the organization that pushed for repeal of the restrictions on adoption and foster care.  I was a founder of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.  I've put in countless hours of volunteer time and many thousands of dollars to work toward equality for gay and lesbian families.

All that I want is for gays and lesbians to be accepted as part of our society - that is the only way that our families are going to be kept safe.  Creating a new, different vocabulary to describe our families segregates us from the rest of society and makes our families less safe in the long run.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 22:37:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I want the same. (0.00 / 0)

But I feel like we've seen the perfect be the enemy of the good too many times.  My favorite example is guaranteed minimum income - that could have happened under Nixon, but liberal groups opposed it because it wasn't enough.  Imagine if we'd had that as a building block for more. 

Absolutely the goal is full equality, at state and federal level.  But I do think the strong legal protections of civil unions, and the formal recognition of relationships, would be a big step forward and it would be a mistake to reject it because it wasn't enough.  Take it - and then keep fighting.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 01:55:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The one other thing worth noting (0.00 / 0)

Is how pushing the small step changes the frame and makes the large step possible.

Don't ask, don't tell is an absolutely horrible, nonsensical policy. It's also probably the only thing Clinton had a chance of implementing.

In the years since it was implemented the discussion has moved from whether we should have gays in the military to what a stupid head-in-the-sand policy this is.

Had we gone into the BushCo years with nothing, that might not have been the discussion. But as it stands I think the next president will quite easily implement full equality in the military because the pump has been primed.

People always bring up the "seperate but equal" analogy, and then make an argument akin to saying that we shouldn't have sent black kids to school at all until the schools were integrated.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 06:59:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

what should we really be pushing for? (0.00 / 0)

My point is that we should at least TRY to make an arguement for full equality before we give up.  Segregation should be something that you fall back on when you have no other choice.  It should not be something that we push for first and we certainly shouldn't be claiming that segregation will stop discrimination and be "a solution".

---

by: brianrater @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:22:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If the small step changes (0.00 / 0)

make the large stop possible - why doesn't Vermont have marriage equality?


NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:04:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because Vermont was court-imposed. (0.00 / 0)

A New Hampshire legislative decision to create civil unions would be the culmination of a long and continuing debate about what we SHOULD do, not what we are being forced to do.

It seems likely that such a process will get more people to change their thinking, where a court mandate tends to get people's backs up.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:13:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't agree (0.00 / 0)

Civil union is throwing a bone that sends a clear message: we can't be bothered to take a principled stand for full equality, so we'll throw you a bone.

VT is now saying, we gave you civil unions, so shut up. It's not a step along the way, it's a dead end.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 13:50:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the diary Jim! (0.00 / 0)

I hope we get this done this year. Is there anything that I can begin to do now to help build support for this measure?

---

by: itstime @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 23:54:48 PM CST

About Brian Rater's Comments, Change, And Getting "There" From "Here." (4.00 / 4)

Brian Rater is a good guy, and he's passionate on the issue of gay and lesbian equality.  He has done much hard work in fighting for the causes of equality.

I understand and can relate to Brian Rater's anger.  And he's right-on in his basic approach that we should fight for full and equal rights, including marriage - - with that word attached - - for the many gays and lesbians among us.  He's correct that we need to engage in that fight until we win "marriage," and all the rights associated with it.

I share his anger.  We differ only in some of our approaches.  We've teamed up on our mutual causes for years, and will do so again.  No one should mistake a difference of strategy as a difference of opinion on our eventual goals.

I'm angry too, that in all but one of the fifty states of this great nation, gays and lesbians cannot make a commitment to one another in "marriage."  "Civil Unions" or "Spousal Unions" or "Domestic Unions" or whatever they may be called are separate rights, pure and simple. 

Rosa Parks had the right to ride on a bus in 1955.  But she had to ride on a back seat if a white person wanted a front seat.  That was not right, and she eventually changed a nation.  I'm angry that it took so long.

I'm angry that despite that fact that many gays and lesbians have fought and died to protect this country in many wars, their gay and lesbian friends are not given equality.  And for a gay man or woman to serve in the military even to this day, they must not "tell." 

I'm angry too that in all but 20 states in America, one can be fired, or denied housing or services, for no other reason than for being gay.

But change does occur, over time.

When I first came out, just a few years before being gay was considered a mental disorder.  That has changed.

When I was a member of the NH State Senate in the 1980s, I could still have been fired from a job just because I was gay.  That has changed.

But change, while it does occur, often takes time. 

Women have been able to vote in America since 1920, but even today they make about .75 cents for every $1.00 made by men in comparable work.  They are less likely than men to be U.S. Senators, or get elected to Congress, or become Governors, CEOs, Generals, etc.  Although that is changing.  None have become President.  Yet. 

It is still major news when an African-American is elected as a Governor, or when one is considered a likely candidate for President. 

But change does come.

Someone a long time ago talked about even a journey of a thousand miles beginning with that first step.  To get "there" from "here," we have to move forward. 

I'm for full marriage rights for gays and lesbians, with the word "marriage."  Brian Rater and I agree on that. 

But I consider full marriage rights for gays and lesbians, regardless of what it might be called, to be an important step, or two or three.

We'll get there, from here.
 

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 17:15:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

separate but equal is not equal (0.00 / 0)

I could fly to Las Vegas tonight, get so drunk that I had a blackout, and marry a stranger in the middle of it, and when I woke up, I'd be married. Yet my gay male friends who have been together for 28 years cannot be married? After 28 years, what else would you call it BUT marriage?

Civil unions will do nothing but make a few things better in-state. Those same civil unions will not be recognized anywhere else. Social Security benefits will not be passed on in the event of a death in the family. One member of the union could take a child out of state and refuse to allow the other parent any custodial rights.

There are 2 kinds of marriage already - civil and religious. Some denominations (like UU's) would gladly perform weddings for gay couples. Some would refuse. That's not a big deal. We already have all of the mechanisms in place.

I fear that passing in-state civil unions will make the fight for marriage equality drag on even longer - because those who are opposed can use the "well we gave them civil unions" as an argument against full equality for decades.

Separate but equal is not equal. Incremental equality doesn't lead to full equality - as we've seen in the case of women and minorities.

Why are we so afraid to tackle this as the civil rights issue it is?

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 16:13:07 PM CST