Concord Monitor endorses Civil Unions

Tip Jar (4.00 / 1)

This definitely takes them out of the running for Worst NH Newspaper in my mind.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 01:38:43 AM CST

This is great. (4.00 / 1)

Suprised to find that the Nashua Telegraph reprinted this editorial too.

Their stance lines up almost exactly with what I had in mind. Not to say I'm okay with just civil unions, but things are running according to schedule and it will come sooner than many think.

Interesting tidbit: An LSR filed for the upcoming session in the state legislature establishing civil unions in New Hampshire, 2007-H-0027-R, was filed by Rep. Steve  Vaillancourt of Manchester, a Republican.

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 03:40:33 AM CST

Very much looking forward to action on this. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the tip.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 07:10:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Keene Sentinel (0.00 / 0)

reprints it this morning.

Caveat: it doesn't necessarily mean an endorsement of the editorial. Every Saturday the Sentinel reprints a round-up of editorials from around the state; sometimes they are chosen for being provocative.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 06:47:47 AM CST

Guy MacMillian took on the same issue... (4.00 / 4)

In his column on November 15th "Gay Justice"

This country's legal and political systems will eventually see to it that homosexual couples are provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. The result may carry another name for a while - domestic partnership, civil union, whatever - but it's inevitable, as people learn about the inequities for gay couples.

He also brought up the question during the District 10 Senate Debate.

Unfortunately, as we discussed yesterday in our "newspaper" thread, it is behind some sort of "double secret paywall"

Please note:  The archive account is a separate service from your online subscription.  Your subscriber account info will not allow access to the Premium Archive Service.

Mr. Rousmaniere, if you are reading, this is a great, timely example of Sentinel commercial policy getting in the way of people powered analysis. With access to this content it is likely that one of the regulars here on BH would write an article about the emerging support for civil unions/gay marriage among the states top newspapers.

Then, the story might get picked up by one of the national blogs, or even an organization such as the AP. This would in turn:

• drive more traffic the the Sentinel Source
• Lend deserved gravitas to the Sentinel (Guy was first in calling for this!)
• And most importantly to me, help amplify the need, and pressure our elected representatives for such legislation in our state.

I mention this with all sincerity as someone who is interested in the promotion progressive values in this great state. It is certainly not an attempt to taunt or start a blog fight!

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 09:11:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Telegraph also? (4.00 / 2)

Scanning the headlines of the Telegraph this morning it looks like they may have printed this as well.

To me, that makes it look like the issue has legs.

Outside of the social justice aspect of it, which is pretty much indisputable, there is an interesting strategic note.

There will be people who will say this would be a disatrous first term policy to push, that it will cripple the State Dems in 2008.

I think that's exactly wrong. The key to winning in 2008 is to split off the Repub's troglodyte base from the relatively sane fiscal Republicans. If a civil union is successfully passed it will further divide the Republican Party in this state, and that could actually solidify Democratic gains.

I want to be clear that I have no questions about the justness of the cause here...but I am interested -- is it possible this cause is the Republican slayer of 2008? Or is it risky to party control?

If a good case can be made that this is a Republican slayer, it will get fast-tracked.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 11:14:59 AM CST

Republican Sponsored (4.00 / 1)

We could effectively take all of the teeth out of the 'Rabid Liberal Democrats" argument by reminding people that this Civil Unions legislation was sponsored by a Republican.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 11:28:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point. If I've learned one thing (4.00 / 1)

since following politics, it's that the play to some presumed pundit-nougat center doesn't work.

Promoting strongly those ideals that exemplify the spirit of one's party - that works.

A strong case made by the NH Dems on this could convince the people of this state to take clear sides. 

On one, a  belief in equal opportunity and freedom under the law coupled with the libertarian privacy of you-have-no-business-in-my-bedroom.

And on the other, a party that wants to force you into their cultural values, even when it discriminates against your friend, your relative, or you.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 13:13:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hate to be a wet blanket (4.00 / 2)

Civil unions aren't equal. Granting civil unions in NH is essentially meaningless, since other states don't recognize civil unions. I'm married when I go out of state - wherever I go. If my husband is hospitalized, I'm still his next of kin. I had lunch yesterday with some married lesbians from Massachusetts - who AREN'T married in NH. If something had happened to them, their next of kin wishes would not be respected here.

Separate but equal is not equal. Civil union is meaningless, unless it's recognized all over the nation. Civil union is tossing a bone - and providing an excuse not to take any real action on marriage equality for decades.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 13:59:52 PM CST

I think we all recognize those issues (0.00 / 0)

But full marriage equality at the state level has them, too. Other states do not recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriages, nor does the IRS.

These are really two separate issues: national recognition of either civil unions or same-sex marriage, and the difference between the two.

Civil union is NOT meaningless. It provides important legal advantages within one's own state and in any states that choose to recognize the union. If New Hampshire adopted them, they would presumably be recognized in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 14:58:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Civil Unions: (0.00 / 0)

All NH Citizens deserve equality under the law.

Heterosexual couples deserve MORE equality under the law than same sex couples.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 19:13:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the thing to realize too (0.00 / 0)

Is the push for IMMEDIATE marriage over civil unions is not trivial in consequences.

By going for broke in the near term, it's very possible you keep thousands of people uninsured, without legal rights in case of death of a partner etc.

I would argue that the push to skip the step of civil unions and go for marriage has held back the adoption of civil unions in many states, with tragic consequences for many.

Point being, it's not always a question pushing ahead at all costs whether you win or lose -- to reject a temporary compromise can be ethically suspect when others lives and livelihoods are on the line.

We know, for example, that nothing less than affordable health care for every American is acceptable as an ultimate goal. But what if we then said we will not approve any bills that insure only kids, because ultimately these are unacceptable compromises against our noble goal of insuring everybody?

Not only would that have very real consequences on kids that would remain uninsured, but strategically it would be a mistake as well -- because when you set up insurance for kids, you are prepping people for the idea of insuring adults (and proving the world doesn't end when the state provides insurance).

You get to marriage much faster, I believe, by going through the civil unions step, and with a lot less pain to people currently in real trouble because they don't have rights they desperately need. Rejecting the good in an attempt to skip straight to the perfect is how we end up in permanent stasis....

In a phrase, I guess what I'm saying is it is unethical to not act strategically in your pursuit of the good...

Although I know I'm unlikely to convince you ;) But if you want to see how change happens, compare COBRA and FMLA (success) to  Clinton's 1993-era heath plan (failure).

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 20:01:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree -- but as a straight, married liberal (0.00 / 0)

I'm SUPPOSED to play the good cop / Martin role while others play Malcolm.

My view matches yours, pretty much -- but I would add that, without continuous pressure to reach equality, our state and nation will stagnate.

Our challenge as a community on this is NOT to reach consensus. It is to accept different perspectives as honest and friendly, even when we think that they are wrong.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 20:22:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, dear (0.00 / 0)

being welcoming "even when we think that they are wrong" was meant as a reminder to MYSELF. And "wrong" is the wrong word anyhow.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 20:29:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's true (0.00 / 0)

As a straight married liberal myself, I suppose there's many ways in which it's really not my battle to strategize.

I think actually when I talk about Civil Unions I'm really talking about health care and other things. Meaning I don't think my position on Civil Unions is much different from my position on all other issues.

COBRA, incidentally, saved my wife and I from going bankrupt. We were facing an impending birth at the time I was laid off, and I was working for a company taken over by people trying to weasel out of their obligations, but it was not worth the risk to mess with COBRA.

So there's an example for me where Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton's decision to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good literally changed my life.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 21:50:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I will ALWAYS push for Mairriage over Civil Unions (4.00 / 1)

I have to... I have no option but to push for full equality.

Does that mean I'll actively work against Civil Unions legislation? No. 

What it DOES mean is that I'll constantly be there, reminding people that it  Civil Unions STILL isn't equality.  The Democrats, being a centrist party, of course will move slowly.  If they want to stay in power and address other issues they need to, they have to.

I need to be the advocate for my own rights, and the Democrats need to be an advocate for the rights of many.  They'll keep making incremental changes towards equality, and I won't stop being an advocate until we GET full equality. 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 23:22:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's a fair position (0.00 / 0)

Meaning, we all work for the short term and you keep reminding us we ain't done yet.

I think that's good for everybody.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 00:18:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

separate but equal is not equal (4.00 / 1)

I saw a show late one night on PBS about a couple from VT who moved there to be joined in a civil union. They had a baby. They were very happy, they had supportive parents - life was groovy. They chose to have another baby. The mother lost the baby, and the relationship went sour. The birth mother took the other child and moved to Virginia. The other mother has no rights - and no claim to her child. She also has no recourse, at this point. The birth mother has become an evangelical Christian who has been "cured" of her homosexuality.

This is the kind of action we set up by playing the incremental game. Civil rights are NEVER won incrementally.

Am I too radical for this site?

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 21:50:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not at all (0.00 / 0)

Because you ask the right question: are civil rights won incrementally?

I think often they are.

But if you could convince me that accepting civil unions would really hinder further advances, then I'd agree -- go for broke.

I think your story is an example of how accepting civil unions  HELP -- because they turn the emotional "they're killing marriage" debate into a very restrained policy debate everyone can understand.

You would have no such story to stage the next attack from if Civil Unions weren't in place. You get thing A in place, and then you can talk about the deficiencies of thing A to get thing B.

Most people on this site are frankly more radical than me. ;)

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 22:05:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

benefits (0.00 / 0)

I see Civil Unions as being an impotent way of tossing gays a bone - while ensuring that no action toward real equality takes place for years - maybe even decades.

I can hear the reasoning now - "we gave those people civil unions - isn't that enough for them..?" and so on.

In 1996, Henry Hyde asked the GAO to identify how many federal benefits are contingent upon marital status. The answer was 1,049. Bill Frist asked for an update this year. The number is now 1,138.

I, personally, cannot advocate for any less than full equality for my gay brethren. That I have 1,138 benefits potentially available to me, just because I'm heterosexual is wrong.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 22:21:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I repeat (0.00 / 0)

You are not talking about "civil unions versus marriage."

You are talking about "national recognition versus state recognition."

Federal recognition of civil unions would presumably provide those 1,138 benefits.

New Hampshire recognition of same-sex marriage would provide none.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:15:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

same sex marriage (4.00 / 1)

is a bad term - it keeps the pervs of the right focused on SEX! For that reason, I prefer the term marriage equality. And equality is what it's all about.

Where is the equality if I can get married, but my gay friends (who have been a couple for 27 years) can only have a civil union? Why must it be called one thing for me, and another for them? How is that equal? 

We already have 2 kinds of marriage - civil and religious. There isn't any need to work around that.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:15:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Civil rights are NEVER won incrementally." (0.00 / 0)

I don't know; I might argue that they are only won incrementally.

I think back on my high school years in the late 80's, when all of my in-the-closet friends would have, quite literally, been killed if they had come out, and the faculty would have turned a blind eye.

And now I see students in Gay-Straight Alliance groups promoted by students and encouraged by faculty.

Of course, that's a cultural change in civil acceptance, not a lawful change in rights, but I have been pretty amazed with how quickly things have moved forward in GLBT issues, especially relative to  sexism, racism, economic classism, etc...  As much as I can't bear to watch it anymore (where did the videos go?), I credit MTV, of all institutions, for doing the most.  They, very early on, were unafraid to highlight gays and lesbians on shows as if it were no big deal (which of course it isn't, but you see what I mean...)

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 23:04:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm a grumpy old feminist (4.00 / 1)

and I still remember men telling me back in the 1970's when I was a teen, "women have to earn equality." That was the kind of patronizing message I grew up listening to.

We women still haven't achieved full equality in this country or in the world - we have a phony, lip service equality (that is eroding daily) - and I don't want to see the same thing happen to my gay brothers and sisters. 

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:18:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think this message is different (0.00 / 0)

Maybe no less patronizing, maybe equally wrong-headed.

People of good will see a real chance of passing a civil union law this year, and don't see a realistic chance of achieving marriage equality as quickly. My instinct is "go for it!"

I'm trying to think through whether civil unions in 2007 means marriage equality gets delayed or accelerated. If I knew for a fact that the choice was "Civil Unions 2007, Marriage Equality 2025" versus "Status Quo 2007, Marriage Equality 2012" it would change my position.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:29:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

All good points, but (0.00 / 0)

for me the problem is with the word "marriage" which crisscrosses the church and state line, depending on whom you talk to.

For some, marriage is a religious institution, so the term doesn't apply to law.  Others point out that marriage licenses, etc... are state functions.

My hope is that everyone committed to a union "till death do us part" get the same legal rights as anyone else.  Whether that's called civil union or marriage for some or for all of us is less important to me (though I readily acknowledge that it is vitally important to others.)

As to the hazards of crossing state borders and rights gained and lost, I see that as an unfortunate but necessary step until enough states get enough marriage or union laws so that we can force the federal law into changing.  Better some states than none, and best the law of the land entire.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 18:23:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I love this comment thread, the whole thing (4.00 / 2)

Seriously, every time I read comment threads like this and see the high caliber of disagreement we have here it warms my heart.

Wouldn't it be great if public policy was run on debates like this? If all election discussions looked like this? A guy can dream right?

Anyway, all your well-supported discord has made this site the most kick-ass politics site in NH, so thanks to all of you. We have a dream set of readers/commenters here, we really do...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:43:32 AM CST