"Spousal Unions:" A Way To Promote Equality For Gays And Lesbians

I'm glad... (4.00 / 2)

to see that the Majority Office decided to include some vague reference to this in the final version of the Democratic legislative agenda:

Support privacy and the equality of all family relationships by supporting legislative initiatives to ensure equal rights for all NH citizens

One question about part 6 of the bill... 
Would this replace RSA 457:3 on the Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages?  It's not clear to me because your bill does not reference out-of-state "marriages" directly, but "legal domestic relationships".  I'm assuming it is intended to have the effect of recognizing marriages performed in Massachusetts but what would become of RSA 457:3?

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 21:41:45 PM CST

Long Overdue (0.00 / 0)

I feel as though this legislation is very long overdue. This is a great step towards equality as well as the right to marry. I hope it passes but i don't think it will. I think it will be hard to pass through the Senate as well. I hope that it goes through due to its intensity and importance. Speaking as an avid New Hampshire Democrat do we think that this legislation is either too soon or symbolic? Only because we all know our states history and the Republicans can turn around and win back this state and use a legislation like this to oust many of the officials we just elected? This would be my only concern is that we can not get our fundamentals through the legislative process. However, again best of luck and i would full heartedly back this legislation with vigor.

---

by: democratsox33 @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 22:34:08 PM CST

To answer your question: absolutely not (4.00 / 2)

While the Governor has made statements that he would not sign a gay marriage bill into law, he has simultaneously made statements about protecting the rights of domestic relationships and moreover not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

That's why it will pass.  I take for granted that it's a fundamental belief among all of us that it should be passed.

As for why this won't hurt us in the next election...  The people of this state simply aren't that stupid.  We all remember quite well how effective the gay marriage issue was in 2004.  The Republicans dropped this red meat on the front porches of homes across America, in the days leading up to the election (we received ours the day of).

What I also remember is how New Hampshire voters were first to reject the old hate tactics - we were the only state in 2004 to go from Red to Blue.

My impression is that the New Hampshire electorate has become disgusted by the religious right and socially conservative campaign strategies. 

But even still, all of that's in the past.  In the present, we gstill find a solid majority of voters here being against same-sex marriage.  The words "gay marriage" obviously still strike a chord with most people, however the principle of equal rights for same-sex couples does not.  In the same survey, more than half said they were open to civil unions.

It is entirely achievable, this legislative session.

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 23:06:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excuse me.. (4.00 / 2)

I couldn't find the poll that I recalled those numbers from, sometimes in the past 5 months.  However...

Scientific polling done by UNH shows that supporters of same-sex marriage were 55% in 2004.

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 23:14:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my concern (4.00 / 2)

is that it leads to a dead end. VT has civil unions - and no marriage equality on the horizon.

Once this is in place - the attitude can easily become, "We gave you people civil unions, now stop your whining."

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 23:50:52 PM CST

This is a major drawback (4.00 / 1)

The gay community has anything but a consensus over this issue.  Some agree with Rep. Splaine's argument that small steps are required to bring change.

Others do not care as much for an expedient solution to unequal rights, but would rather wait for the full marriage equality all at once.

Frankly I think we should be pushing for same-sex marriages now, but with the Democrats in Concord being so politically timid right now...  yeah, no chance in hell.  I'm not saying that the people aren't ready for it, I'm just saying that Democratic leadership and Governor Lynch aren't.

So, what to do?

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 00:10:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Andy, you're a Democrat in Concord (4.00 / 2)

You come off as slightly timid when you say something has no chance in hell because everyone else is being timid. If it bothers you, do something about it.

Personally, I'm not even sure there is much of a difference between a same-sex marriage and a same-sex civil unions while the Defense of Marriage Act is still in force. As long as full faith and credit between the states is denied by the federal government, a same-sex marriage is effectively a same-sex civil union for most purposes. It's certainly not marriage equality.

I may be wrong in this view, but it begs the question: What advantage, other than symbolic, would a same-sex marriage law provide to homosexual couples that would not be provided by Rep. Splaine's bill.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 00:32:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

? not . (0.00 / 0)

I wish there were a way to 'edit' comments.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 00:36:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Realistic" not "timid (0.00 / 0)

I'm just calling it like I see it.  Nowhere did I say that I am not voting for it, so where do you get off calling me timid?

My constituents all know where I stand on this issue because I made it perfectly clear during the election, so it doesn't make sense that I'd fear political consequences, now would it..

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:07:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Chill out. (0.00 / 0)

I didn't call you timid, I didn't mean to offend you, and I didn't suggest you fear any political consequences.

Voting for or against something requires a minimal level of personal commitment. If the issue bothers you so much, make a stand. Stir up support.

If you want to dismiss something as having no chance in hell, you're not going to win a lot of people over to your side. There is a big difference between realism and cynicism. Working to make sure your vote is one toward a majority is a lot more valuable to me as one of your constituents then a symbolic vote that expresses where you stand ideologically.

Your statement, however, reflected the very definition of timidity. It showed a lack of confidence. It was not bold. It was not courageous. It was dismissive and it left the impression that something you believe in is not even worth your time because its chance of passing is so remote.

I think HB 791 "relative to religious freedom and civil marriage" sponsored by Reps. Baxley, Morrison, Butler, DeChane, and our other state Representative, Bette Lasky, has more than a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House when our party has nearly an 80 seat majority before counting reasonable Republicans who might also support such a measure.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:09:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're confused (4.00 / 1)

I'm saying that the governor won't sign a gay marriage bill into law, he said this I'm not being defeatist.

Given this, does  that make a better case for passing a spousal unions bill NOW or is it worth the wait (ie: whenever Lynch stops making stupid promises every 2 years)

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 16:09:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It makes it worth (0.00 / 0)

trying to pass the first bill through the legislature and seeing if Lynch vetoes it. If he does you've got the other bill ready to go. I don't know under our House rules, but normally this can be dealt with by clever agenda setting. I'm inclined to think whether or not he vetoes it will depend on the political climate at the time.

I don't think such an extensively laid out bill as the one I mentioned above would attract so relatively many cosponsors from all over the state if the consensus is that it isn't going to go anywhere.

There is some risk in not acting now, because the extent of our majorities in future legislatures is unknown, and history has the odds against us.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 17:09:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Glad we agree (4.00 / 1)

"Frankly I think we should be pushing for same-sex marriages now..."

And I think I've implicitly given my support for HB437 as well.

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 17:19:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think that was the point we disagreed on (0.00 / 0)

but it's a good enough conclusion.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 22:12:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What Advantage? (4.00 / 2)

Equality.

Everybody knows what marriage means... but what exactly is a 'spousal union'?

The very fact that we need to create a separate category under law is unfair. Even if it is equal on paper (which it's not), its unfair.

The only reason we're doing it is because a great deal of people hate gays and lesbians.  A large number of people don't think we belong in this country.  At the very least, we should be treated as second class citizens.

These people will never support Democrats.  They don't care if we call it civil unions or marriage... equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians will never fly with them. 

By trying to create a compromise between equality and second class citizenship, the only outcome is second class citizenship.

That being said, I'm very conflicted on this issue as to what legislative strategy we should attempt.  I am very thankful for any efforts by our legislators on the marriage equality front.  I hope our leaders will a bold stand for equality, but I understand the political position Democrats are in and the reality of a long list of issues that need addressing.  I'm a Democratic Activist before I'm a Gay Rights activist.

So, there's my conflicting views on this issue.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:12:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DOMA (4.00 / 1)

The majority of New England (by population) now recognizes same sex unions in one form or another. None of these states has chosen to go backward by amending its Constitution (and Massachusetts won't).

So I think it's time to demand that each of our Presidential candidates commit to repeal DOMA and make the federal government honor the decisions of each state on recognizing unions, for matters ranging from Form 1040 to Social Security benefits.

IMHO, that would be a much bigger win for more gay couples than the wording change between 'spousal union' and 'marriage.'

(But I'm straight and married -- discount as you choose...)

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:50:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

except that (4.00 / 1)

The words we use are important. The way we define our terms is of paramount importance.

We should absolutely call for the repealing of DOMA. At the same time, we should be calling for marriage equality. There isn't any reason not to do both.

I am married. My gay friends should be able to be married, too. It's a simple issue of justice and civil rights.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 13:06:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One important difference (4.00 / 1)

Rep. Splaine's bill is not being forced by a court decision. Arguably, that will result in less stubborn resistance to further action.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:41:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Could I request (4.00 / 1)

that "spousal unions" not be limited to "same gender couples"?  It would be easy to patch this bill to make that the case, and would pave the way for longer-term "government out of marriage" type laws.

My fantasy is that the government would regulate domestic partnership only, between any number of persons of any or all sexes.  Some people already refer to themselves as "married" whether they are legally or not, and I have a partner: but we have no legal standing.  People can call their arrangements whatever they want, and there are already other organizations that regulate marriage, most notably churches.  Rudy Giuliani, for instance, had his first marriage annulled in the Roman Catholic church, and this church also bans the marriage of same-sex couples (and, one presumes, of multiple spouses).

I forget where I read this, but I like it:  Marriage has three components.  The legal component is the license.  The personal (and sometimes religious) component is the ceremony.  The social component is the reception.  I would like to see the government out of everything but the legal side, and I don't see any compelling public interest in institutionalized discrimination.  (Don't even think about bringing up child-rearing.  That's bull and everybody knows it.)

---

by: Mormo @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:53:08 AM CST

Here is my testimony on HB 437. (4.00 / 5)

NH House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing on HB 437.
Testimony by Raymond Buckley.

Chairman David Cote: I call on the Honorable Raymond Buckley of Manchester.

Ray Buckley: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee.

For the record Mr. Chairman, I am Raymond Buckley, and I had the honor of representing Manchester's ward 8 for nearly two decades in this House.

I am here to express my strong personal support for HB 437. Let me repeat myself, I am here expressing my PERSONAL support. I am not here representing anyone else or any organization. Although, I do want to respond the person who came before you and claimed that since he was descendent of the Mayflower you should give more weight to his argument against legal rights for NH's Gays and Lesbians. I am actually the descendent of FIVE of the Mayflower families so I ask that you give my word five times the weight of his! He also quoted the fifth commandment regarding "honoring your father and mother". Well I consider supporting this legislation as honoring those Mayflower families. They risked their lives for equality and freedom by leaving their homeland. They did it because they felt they had no choice in order to live their life as they saw fit. Well. Mr. Chairman, as I said on the floor of the NH House three years ago "In the fight for gay and lesbian rights, I am not going anywhere". I will honor those brave families by staying right here in New Hampshire, the state my family has been in for hundreds of years, to fight for the rights of gays and lesbians.

Just blocks from here twenty two years ago I attended the organizational meeting of the NH Citizens Alliance for Gay and Lesbian Rights and served on its board its first year. If someone had told me then that I would someday be appearing before my friend David Cote's committee, where he would be serving as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which in itself would have been stunning, but to also be here urge the passage of this historic piece of legislation I would have thought it unimaginable. What an amazing time for all of us.

I ask for your support for HB 437 because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for New Hampshire's gay and lesbian families and it is the right thing to do for every citizen of New Hampshire. We in a NH have a proud history over the past twenty years of acknowledging our gay community is part of the greater community, now it is time to acknowledge that we should be an equal part.

You may hear from some that this bill does not go far enough. And that argument has merit in my mind, but I don't agree with those who say we should kill the good while we await the perfect. Too me that notion is akin to refusing a glass of water while thirsty because one is waiting for champagne. Well my friends, the thousands of gay and lesbian families across NH cannot await any longer, we thirst for our rights and responsibilities. Just last week, in the state of Washington my friends were celebrating the passage of a simple Domestic Partnership bill. Each state must craft its own solution but NH must join those states in America's Eastern Region that provide legal recognition of same-sex couples.

In 2005, I traveled from one end of the state to the other and listened and read testimony from over a thousand persons regarding this issue. As you may remember I was Governor Lynch's representative on the ill-fated Marriage Commission. Sitting here these past five hours I have heard several people testifying who mention the work of the commission and holding up the majority report as if it should be respected. I think that my colleagues on that commission who are here today, Senator Martha Fuller Clark and Rep Ed Butler would agree with my opinion that the majority report is an embarrassment and is not worth the paper it was printed on.

There were two basic arguments made before the commission the minority expressed their religious belief that homosexuality should be condemned and that they can somehow force every gay man and lesbian to become straight. But the majority of those who came before us expressed their support for legal recognition of their family. When asked, nearly every single one of the proponents of legal recognition of same sex couples replied that although the term marriage might be ideal, it was the very fact that NH would recognize their long time loving relationship with the rights and responsibilities of every other family that led the majority to testify that civil unions, or by any other term, would be an important, historic first step for the thousands of families across New Hampshire who currently have no rights, recognition or responsibilities.

I ask that you hear the voices of those who have already waited too long, suffered too much and been too patient. I ask that you support this critically needed bill, HB 437.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Chairman Cote: Thank you for your testimony. Are they any questions from the committee?

Representative Mo Baxley: Would you believe that I am pleased to see you here today?

Ray Buckley: Yes, it is great to be out! (general laughter)

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 16:29:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So how did the hearings go? (0.00 / 0)

Were you there for the 10 am hearing as well?

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

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 16:37:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I was. (4.00 / 2)

The 10 AM hearing went on until after 2 PM - with only a 10 minute break. The 11 AM hearing was still going when I left at about 3:45 PM. Lots of fundies showed up for 10 AM. I recognized them from over the years. Its the same ones every year. So obsessed with eveyone else's life. So odd to me. Over all, the breakdown of those testifying against overwhelmed us badly. About 3 to 1.

For the Splaine/Hilliard bill. Jim Splaine did a great low-key job very calmly but passionately laying out his argument. Dana Hilliard must have been inspired by the preachers because he was on fire! I have known him for 15 years and has never been better. Rep. Ed Butler testified in favor with his emotional story about he and his partner of over 20 years. Senator Jackie Cilley and Maggie Hassan also testified in favor. Senator Martha Fuller Clark as a mom of a gay man was as usual, excellent. Then I testified. Following me was Brian Rater, the Co-Chair of the NH Freedom to Marry Coalition testifying against. I had to leave while Brian was speaking.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 17:18:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well done. (4.00 / 1)

Has the census data showing that New Hampshire has the highest percentage of gay citizens, and the fastest growth in  gay couples, among all states, played a role in the debate?

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 17:07:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]