About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

CIVIL UNIONS: It's About Time

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:39:19 AM EDT
( - promoted by elwood)

It's about time. 

House Bill 437 will be up for a vote in the NH House of Representatives this Wednesday.  It would provide all of the same rights, obligations, and responsibilities of marriage currently granted to differently-gendered couples to same-gendered couples.

If you favor this legislation, please contact your favorite Legislators.  A list of telephone numbers and E-Mails can be found on the New Hampshire WEBSITE, nh.gov.  Go to "legislative branch" and click on "House."

It's about time that we bring this higher degree of equality for our gay and lesbian residents.  If gays and lesbians represent 5-10% of our population, that would mean that some 60,000 to 120,000 New Hampshire residents would benefit.  Same-gendered couples in a loving relationship could make their lifetime commitment to one another, and that is a good thing for society. 

It is good for New Hampshire when gays and lesbians join the ranks of "married people."  That will hurt no one, and will only enhance the importance of marriage and will expand family values.

Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey currently provide civil unions, and Massachusetts provides full marriage equality for gay and lesbian residents.  All that has happened of any "negative" consequence is ... the price of gasoline has gone up!
Rep. Jim Splaine :: CIVIL UNIONS: It's About Time
House Bill 437, as offered by the House Judiciary Committee with a recommendation for passage by a vote of 15 to 5, follows: 

HOUSE BILL 437 - 2007 SESSION

AN ACT permitting same gender couples to enter civil unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples.

SPONSORS:  Representative Jim Splaine, Rockingham #16; Representative Dana Hilliard, Strafford #2

COMMITTEE:  House Judiciary

Proposed by the Committee on Judiciary

­1  New Chapter; Civil Unions.  Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 457 the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 457-A - CIVIL Unions

457-A:1  State Recognition of Civil Unions; Purpose.  The state of New Hampshire recognizes the civil union between one man and another man or one woman and another woman.  The purpose of this chapter is to delineate the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of parties entering a civil union, to establish a process by which the civil union is established, and to provide a process for the dissolution of a civil union.

457-A:2  Requisites.  Parties entering into a civil union shall be subject to the same requirements and conditions as contained in RSA 457, provided that civil unions shall only be allowed between one man and another man or one woman and another woman, subject to the prohibitions in RSA 457-A:3 and RSA 457-A:4.

457-A:3  Civil Unions Prohibited; Men.  No man shall enter into a civil union with his father, his father's brother, his mother's brother, his son, his brother, his daughter's son, his brother's son, his sister's son, his father's brother's son, his mother's brother's son, his father's sister's son, or his mother's sister's son.

457-A:4  Civil Unions Prohibited; Women.  No woman shall enter into a civil union with her mother, her father's sister, her mother's sister, her daughter, her sister, her son's daughter, her daughter's daughter, her brother's daughter, her sister's daughter, her father's brother's daughter, her mother's brother's daughter, her father's sister's daughter, or her mother's sister's daughter.

457-A:5  Forms, Documents, and Applications; Solemnization.  The secretary of state shall develop forms, documents and applications for entering into a civil union, which shall conform to this chapter as well as RSA 5-C:41-61.  Civil unions shall be solemnized pursuant to the provisions of RSA 457:31.  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a minister or clergy to solemnize a civil union.

457-A:6  Rights, Obligations, and Responsibilities.  Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the parties who enter into a civil union pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations and responsibilities provided for in state law that apply to parties who are joined together pursuant to RSA 457.

457-A:7  Dissolution.  Parties who have entered into a civil union who wish to dissolve the civil union shall do so pursuant to RSA 458.

457-A:8  Other Jurisdictions.  Civil unions or other legal domestic relationships between parties of the same gender, entered into by nonresidents or by New Hampshire residents in other jurisdictions shall be recognized by the state of New Hampshire, provided that those relationships are legal in the jurisdiction where they are performed.

­2  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect January 1, 2008.

Explanation:  RSA 457 are the state marriage statutes; RSA 458 are statutes about divorce.
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
CIVIL UNIONS: It's About Time | 24 comments
The percentage (0.00 / 0)
Rep. Splaine, we noticed a US Census study some months ago that found New Hampshire has the highest percentage of gay residents, and the greatest growth in percentage of population, of any state. The percentage was 6.6%.
I normally wouldn't do this, (0.00 / 0)
but we have so many important diaries on the front page right now that I put part of this post "below the fold".

Having said that, this is an important moment indeed for our state.  Thanks as always, Rep. Splaine!

When it rains, it pours. (0.00 / 0)
It was really quiet on here all day yesterday.  So much so that I was about to do a post about my thoughts on an Adequate Education just to fill the void.

I'll save that for another time.

[ Parent ]
No kidding. (4.00 / 1)
Well, I was out at events all day, so I wasn't online to see the quiet, but it sure is hopping today.

And this one is great.  Wouldn't it be amazing if NH did this without a court having to step in, just simple democracy?

[ Parent ]
It's the NH way n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
-- Coming Soon -- (0.00 / 0)
The most amazing floor speech EVER, from last Wednesday when CACR-1 was killed.

Tomorrow is going to be an even greater day...

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

asdf (0.00 / 0)
you should post it on here after you give it.  I'd love to hear what you have to say on the issue.

You could also give us a... blow by blow... of what happens.  I'm sure how the House handles this issue is of interest to many Blue Hampshire readers.

[ Parent ]
We'll have a lot of candidates (4.00 / 1)
in state tomorrow. I wonder what comments they will have following the vote.
One of them (0.00 / 0)
was already asked that question at a private meeting with state legislators recently, but there were no members of the press present.  Frankly, it wouldn't have hurt them, based on their answer..

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship
[ Parent ]
You still haven't dealt with conception rights (0.00 / 0)
Rep. Splaine,
you never responded to my comment in your first post.  A lot of readers responded, but never addressed the central issue I am raising:  Same-sex couples should not have the right to conceive together, and yet all marriages should continue to have the right to conceive together.  Please re-read that thread, it addresses a lot of the misconceptions that people first have when encountering this objection.  This is a new one, and you need to give it some thought.  It will help same-sex couples nationwide, as well as the Democratic candidates, for there to be a real distinction between marriage and civil union.  The right to conceive together should be it.
Conceiving with someone of the same sex requires genetic engineering and is unsafe and unethical, and should be prohibited.  All marriages, however, must continue to guarantee a right to conceive children together, using the couple's own genes.  Thus, civil unions should be defined as granting all the benefits protections and rights of marriage except the right to conceive children together.

Er, no. (4.00 / 1)
There's so much wrong with this I'm not even getting started.  Just no.  Good try, but no.
[ Parent ]
Good try? (3.00 / 4)
It's really not surprising when a one-note piper consistently hits that note...
[ Parent ]
Troll-rated for telling the truth? (0.00 / 0)
Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Every word you have spilled on this site concerns conception without egg and sperm.  How could we not define you as single-issue?

And what this has to do with civil unions is beyond me.  And it smacks of homophobia to link the two.

I encourage to BH community to uprate the above comment.

[ Parent ]
A distinction is needed (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing wrong with it Laura.  Examine it one point at a time:

Attempting same-sex conception would be terribly wrong and Congress should prohibit it and all other forms of genetic engineering by enacting a natural conception law, aka an egg and sperm law. 

Dr. Richard Scott should not be allowed to try to create a baby for a same-sex couple until Congress makes the judgement that it is safe and ethical.  Until then, same-sex couples should not have the right to attempt to conceive children together.

All marriages should have a right to attempt to conceive children together, by combining their own genes.

Go on the record with anything you disagree with above.  See if you can address those points and not throw out some irrelevant talking point that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

And then, consider the advantages for same-sex couples if we enact an egg and sperm law and make conception rights the distinction between marriage and civil union.  By having a distinction, there is far far greater chance that a NH same-sex couple can have their union recognized in other states.  Inisting on "all the rights of marriage" makes these new CU's much less secure and much less likely to ever be federally recognized.  By explicitly not granting all the rights of marriage, it would help couples.  And meanwhile insisting that same-sex couples have conception rights NOW is foolish and makes same-sex couples vulnerable to exploitation, to say nothing of the harms that might come to their child.  It's completely unnecessary, and it would be very conciliatory and smart to accept that officially.

[ Parent ]
Mr Howard: (0.00 / 0)
I have invited you to post your own diary on this topic -- and to stop derailing other people's diaries with this separate topic.

This is troll behavior and will be treated as such.

[ Parent ]
hmm, no, it isn't (0.00 / 0)
I'm not trying to annoy anyone, I'm trying to make sure the NH Legislature considers the issue of same-sex conception.  This is too important to miss any opportunities to raise awareness of this issue.  But I'll make a diary about it for you to ignore it more easily.
[ Parent ]
and it's not a seperate topic (0.00 / 0)
As I said in his other thread, his bill needs to have seven words inserted: "except the right to conceive together".  What is the topic of his diaries if not to discuss his bill before they vote on it?  Oh, maybe the topic is how busy a day it is here today?  Or, um, that the other candidates that are going to be in town tomorrow?  No, those are seperate topics.  Focus, elwood.  This thread is about the civil union bill.  You're welcome.
[ Parent ]
The seven words (0.00 / 0)
oops, left one out: "except the right to conceive children together."

Why not, folks?  It would make these CU's more powerful nationally, and stop exploitation.  Why not?

[ Parent ]
Who are you? (4.00 / 3)
And why do you spend time on such whack-a-doo topics?  To quote the late, great, Ned Martin: Mercy!
[ Parent ]
"Whack-a-doo" (4.00 / 1)
I just like hearing that in my mind: "Whack-a-doo."
[ Parent ]
I like (4.00 / 1)
whack a doo too, as much as my other favorite new phrase of the week:

"Rudith"

[ Parent ]
If the Democrats (4.00 / 2)
are able to get this bill through, every wish I had for the new Democratic Majority will have happened already. This is historic.
There's no logical imperative (4.00 / 1)
to conflate reproduction of the species with two parties contracting to provide each other with domestic support.  It's this domestic support which qualifies for social re-inforcement and some additional benefits because it's good for society to have these non-biological networks in addition to consanguinity.
While there are some people who enter into a domestic partnership are sexually attracted to each other and participate in emotionally gratifying behavior, a legal recognition of a such a partnership is neither conditioned on such behavior, mandates it nor precludes it in people who haven't entered into such a legal relationship.  Indeed, I would expect that a significant number of individuals who enter into such partnerships, regardless of their gender or sexual preferences have little or no interest in sexual gratification and it's certainly not their primary motivation for pledging mutual support to each other in front of the community at large.
Moreover, the rationale for excluding specific categories of biological relationships from entering into such domestic partnerships rests on the finding that they would be redundant, if not injurious to domestic relationships that already exist.
Sad to say, neither social support nor opprobrium seems to have little effect on the behavior of individuals who seek to gratify their sexual inclinations in an exploitive manner.  It's a mistake to think we can  cure one thing by promoting something else.
little effect s/b much (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
CIVIL UNIONS: It's About Time | 24 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox