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

NH Historic First: Civil Unions Would Help Equality

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:47:50 AM EDT


A rather historic vote was taken Thursday in Concord.  For the first time, a committee of the New Hampshire State Legislature endorsed a civil unions bill, which would allow same-gendered couples to have all of the same "rights, obligations, and responsibilities" currently given to differently-gendered couples.

The House Judiciary Committee voted in a very bipartisan 15-5 vote to approve House Bill 437.  Some real stars on the Committee speaking for the bill included Chair David Cote of Nashua, Gail Morrison of Sanbornton, and Bette Lasky of Nashua. 

If it passes on the House floor this coming week and is approved by the State Senate, it would be historic in another way:  this would be the very first time that a state has adopted legal unions for same-gendered couples without any threat of court action first.  New Hampshire would join Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey as the only states with civil unions.  California has a fairly extensive domestic relationships law, but comes short of formal unions for same-gendered couples.  Massachusetts allows marriage for its gay and lesbian citizens, but that was court mandated and hasn't been vetoed by their legislature. 

Our action in favor of equality contrasts positively to the 27 states where constitutional amendments have been adopted prohibiting same-gendered relationships.  New Hampshire is also one of just 20 states protecting sexual orientation as part of our civil rights law; in some 30 states one can still be fired, or denied housing or services, just because of being gay.

It's not finalized yet, of course.  The State Senate would have to vote favorably if the House approves the bill.  And we can expect a tough floor fight in the House. 

And Governor John Lynch hasn't said he will allow civil unions to become law, with or without his signature.  I'm confident he will, however, because from my knowing him since the early 1970s, I've always found him to be an inherently fair person.  While he has stated he would veto gay marriage, he has indicated he will consider something else, and that he is opposed to discrimination against our tens of thousands of gay and lesbian citizens.  Now he can deliver. 

Civil unions isn't marriage, with the word.  While it provides all the same rights, obligations, and responsibilities of marriage, it isn't marriage.  That fight has to continue, and I'll be joining others on that effort.  Another bill was approved by the Judiciary Committee that would create a serious study and analysis about marriage for gays and lesbians. 

Progress on equality, however, occurs step by step.  We've come so far because of the hard work and sacrifices of so many so far.  Civil unions is a positive step.  If one has a 20 foot pond to jump over, it sure helps if there's a stepping stone in the middle.

HB 437 is sponsored by Somersworth State Representative Dana Hilliard and myself, but working hard for its passage have been most of the openly gay members of the House:  Marlene DeChane of Barrington, Ed Butler of Harts Location, David Pierce of Etna, as well as Gail Morrison.  Most were at the all-day hearing on the bill a couple of weeks ago, and the 6 hour Committee voting session, joined by former State Representative Ray Buckley.  Former State Senator Rick Trombly has worked hard on this and other equality issues as well. 

The adventure continues...

 

Rep. Jim Splaine :: NH Historic First: Civil Unions Would Help Equality
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Shouldn't give all the rights of marriage (0.00 / 0)
There is one right that a married man and a woman should have that same-sex couples should not have, though:  The right to combine genes and have genetic offspring together.  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.

Fundamentalist hate speech. (4.00 / 1)
All marriages, however, must continue to guarantee a right to conceive children together, using the couple's own genes.

Per this hate doctrine my widowed and older mother cannot remarry, because she is past child-bearing years. My marriage is void, because I have a vasectomy.

Another episode of: "Your Bodies Belong to My Church!" from the American Taliban.


[ Parent ]
Please re-read (0.00 / 0)
Your marriage is guaranteed the right to conceive children, like all marriages should continue to be.  It doesn't matter if you can or not, the point is that you have the right to, you can't be prohibited from conceiving.  Same-sex couples should be prohibited from conceiving together, because the genetic manipulations required to do same-sex conception is unsafe and unethical.  It took 450 tries to get just one mouse to live to adulthood in 2004 (google "Kaguya mouse").  That's unsafe and unnecessary.

[ Parent ]
I did re-read. (4.00 / 1)
I repeat: this is fundamentalist hate speech.

Various cloning technologies are entirely unrelated to marriage. An egomaniacal man or woman may want a clone of only his/her DNA. A football team owner may want a player who combines the speed of player A with the dexterity of player B.

Allowing or prohibiting such technologies is entirely unrelated to "marriage" -- except in the mind and language of the hate lobby.


[ Parent ]
I explained how it is related already. (0.00 / 0)
Let me ask you if you support or oppose an egg and sperm law that prohibits all genetic engineering.

It's not hateful to oppose genetic engineering, one doesn't need to support genetic engineering to support gay rights.  It is actually anti-gay to insist that genetic engineering be developed for same-sex couples, since Love Makes a Family and gay people do not require genetic engineering to be fully emancipated.


[ Parent ]
No one here (0.00 / 0)
is suggesting that "genetic engineering be developed for same-sex couples".

By insisting that we deny equal rights to Gays and Lesbians because of the possibility of future cloning, a seperate issue all together, you are propogating hate speech.

Marriage as a right and a legal contract is unrelated to the biological processes and medical procedures involved in human reproduction.  Having children is not a requirement of marriage, to say it is is to ignore the millions of legally married couples who have chosen to adopt, or don't have children by choice or for medical reasons.

There are many arguments for supporting a bill favoring 'civil unions' or 'spousal unions' over equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.  I will NOT accept your argument based on a hypothetical medical procedure; cloning.  It is an entirely separate issue.


[ Parent ]
No one here has agreed it should be banned (0.00 / 0)
It seems people here are insisting that it remain legal.  There ARE scientists working on it and same-sex couples that want to be  able to have biologically related children like a man and a woman do.  Lots of GLBT groups officially and explicitly insist on complete autonomy in all reproductive decisions (ie, no bans), and also insist that the state make it safe and affordable for them (we pay for it).  So maybe no one here is suggesting it, but that is just strategic duplicity.  It is clear that people here are just avoiding talking about it, because they DO in fact support it.  Am I wrong?

Having children together is not a requirement of marriage, it is a RIGHT of marriage.  It is a right that same-sex couples should not have.


[ Parent ]
I've read your trollish nonsense. (0.00 / 0)
Your central claim is:

all marriages must continue to allow the couple to conceive children together.

That is based on you "religious" beliefs, not on law or American values.

There are other places that enjoy hearing people spew this hatred.


[ Parent ]
So you want to be able to prohibit marriages from conceiving together? (0.00 / 0)
That was a popular sentiment in the 30's and 40's.  Skinner v Oklahoma declared that all people have a basic civil right to conceive.  But there is a dangerous neo-eugenics movement to screen people for genetic fitness and either engineer or substitute "better" genes, either by suggestion or force.  It's very important that marriage's conception rights be preserved, as a civil rights issue.  We don't need a big government beaurocracy deciding what genes are acceptable and what genes aren't.  Let people choose their partner in marriage and let them use their own genes to conceive.

[ Parent ]
Howe on earth could two people (0.00 / 0)
of the same gender conceive, and what does that have to do with marriage?

I'm confused by this argument.


[ Parent ]
They'd go to a lab (0.00 / 0)
and pay (or have the state pay) for them to do it.  What difference does it make how?

It is independent of marriage in that it should be prohibited, along with all non egg and sperm conception, regardless of marriage.  But it is related to marriage in that all marriages must continue to allow the couple to conceive children together.  Same-sex couples should not have the right to conceive together, all marriages should.  Ergo, same-sex couples should not have all the rights of marriage, but they should have all the other rights of marriage, in the form of civil unions.


[ Parent ]
Stop (4.00 / 1)
Cloning and Genetic Engineering regulations should have nothing to do with our marriage laws.

If you want to have the debate about cloning, fine.  Lets have it.  It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with marriage laws, however.


[ Parent ]
wishful thinking (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I'm having the debate about genetic engineering.  We need an egg and sperm law asap, a doctor in New Jersey said he expects to see children being created for same-sex couples in "three to five years" away if research continues at the present pace - in 2005!

People should only have the right to conceive by choosing someone of the other sex to conceive with.  So even before we get to the issue of marriage, we have the issue that same-sex couples should not have the same rights.  The right that they shouldn't have is the sine qua non of marriage.

Do you agree that all marriages must have a right to conceive children, or do you think it is fine if marriages are prohibited from having children?


[ Parent ]
You want an egg and sperm law? (0.00 / 0)
Fine.  Talk about an egg and sperm law.

I do NOT think that this has any place in our marriage laws.

There are many options available for same sex couples wishing to parent children.  Currently, adoption and in vitro fertilization are options.  I don't know enough about the procedure you are so adamantly against to have an opinion, but I am rather against anti-science laws that prevent valuable genetics research. 


[ Parent ]
OK, let's focus on that (0.00 / 0)
Let's talk about the egg and sperm law, then.  I'm always happy to promote and explain the egg and sperm law.

We can stay focused on the proposed law itself.  First of all, the law would only prohibit conception of children by any means other than combining a man's sperm and a woman's egg.  It would not prohibit any research on anything, just conceiving children.  Second, it wouldn't prohibit IVF or affect adoption, everything that is done today would continue unaffected by this law.

It would, however, mean that a man has a right to have children with a woman, but not with a man.  It would prohibit  same-sex couples from attempting to conceive.  It would not affect the rights of any male-female couple.

OK, no mention of marriage in this post.  Do you have a problem with any of this?


[ Parent ]
Why (0.00 / 0)
You've detailed what the law would and wouldn't prohibit, but you haven't made an argument as to why it is needed.

I believe I have heard a bit about the procedure you are so adamantly against.  I think they essentially took the nucleus out of an egg, and replaced it with one from a sperm.  They then fertilized that egg with another sperm, and life was conceived.

I haven't read or participated in any pro/con arguments about this, I don't know the risks, ect.  What are your thoughts?  Why are you against this new form or artificial conception?


[ Parent ]
To stop genetic engineering, silly (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't work just to put an egg nucleus into a sperm or vice versa, because male and female genomes are not interchangable, they have complimentary imprinting, a male-imprinted genome and a female-imprinted genome are both required or it won't work.  They've succeed creating a mouse from two females (named Kaguya) using genetic engineering to modify the imprinting so that they can fool the gametes into joining and creating an embryo, but it took 450 tries to get one mouse to live to adulthood.  It was essentially a random process, trying different things to knock out or turn on different genes and seeing if it works.  Most of the embryos died in gestation, but ten were born alive, at least eight of which had serious defects and did not survive.  Even if they  improve the success rate in one species, it can't be translated to another species, because in different species, the male and female are comlimentary in different ways.  It can't be tested in animals.  Plus, even the testing in animals is unethical, since it is not intended to save any lives or cure any diseases.  Doing same-sex conception is entirely unnecessary, since love makes a family and there are safe alternatives to genetic engineering.  This would send a bad message to adopted kids and to adoptive parents and step parents.

Plus, we need to stop genetic engineering for the reasons commonly cited by people like Bill McKibben.  It would create a genes-race, where people felt obligated to give their kids "better" genes so that they are smart and talented and handsome and healthy.  The only place to draw the line is right where it is right now: at natural conception.  Though same-sex conception wouldn't create "designer" children, it would open the door to genetic engineering of children, and it would be a very small step to engineering some extra improvements whie they are at it, especially if the improvements are considered "safer".  Most gay couples that use IVF and surrogacy are already taking the small extra step of choosing the sex of their children, for example, when this service is offered.
Plus more generally, it changes the nature of having children from welcoming your offspring as nature made them to feeling that children are products that were ordered to specifications.

OK?  So now I ask you, why do you think same-sex conception needs to be developed?  At what expense, and who should pay for it?  And who should decide when it is safe?  And why should it be legal NOW??  Isn't it prudent to prohibit it now, and accept civil unions that did not grant conception rights, since that sort of civil union could be enacted even in the states that have constitutionally prohibited same-sex marriage, and could probably quickly get through Congress for federal recognition too, especially if it is packaged with the egg and sperm law to preserve marriage?


[ Parent ]
Look (0.00 / 0)
I really don't appreciate this:

OK?  So now I ask you, why do you think same-sex conception needs to be developed?  At what expense, and who should pay for it?  And who should decide when it is safe?  And why should it be legal NOW??

I said none of those things.

I really don't think that the egg and sperm law is something that people have in mind when opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians.  They just hate us, and use any 'justification' they can find to feel better about.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, this is a non issue.  We already have laws against human cloning.  This procedure ALREADY isn't legal, and its not like there are any GLBT organizations demanding millions in government money just to develop this technique.

This is just one of those GOP non-issues they dig up to scare people over nothing.  An egg and sperm law has nothing to do with marriage laws.


[ Parent ]
It's one or the other (0.00 / 0)
Either you are for the egg and sperm law, or you are for developing genetic engineering, and since you haven't said you are for the egg and sperm law, then I ask you all of those questions.
You are quite right that most people opposed to same-sex marriage are opposed for other reasons.  But none of them are embracing the egg and sperm law as a way to hurt gay people, though many of them might stop hating gay people if we did draw a line at reproduction and preserved marriage as a man and a woman.  Perhaps lots of the animosity comes from fearing a future of artificial reproduction, and if we assured them that gays are not interested in that, it might make them fear gay people less.

We actually DON'T have laws against human cloning.  The Brownback bill has been stalled over the issue of stem cell research, and a new bill by Feinstein and Hatch is about to be debated that would ban implanting a SCNT cloned embryo while protecting cloning for stem cell research.  Neither of those bills would prohibit human genetic engineering or same-sex conception anyway, since they aren't strict SCNT.  The President's Council on Bioethics recommended  that Congress enact an egg and sperm law in 2004 but they were ignored by the media and Congress didn't act.

And there are many prominent GLBT organizations that are listed as having signed on to the Causes In Common statement in which they demand full individual autonomy in making reproductive decisions as well as safe and affordable access to all forms of reproductive technology.  The organizations were probably thinking of IVF and surrogacy, but their demand is open-ended and unlimited, in principle it applies to same-sex conception also.

And it does have something to do with marriage laws, you are being ridiculous.  Marriage must continue to guarantee the couple the right to have children together, and couples that are prohibited from conceiving together simply don't have the rights of marriage.  But this is an opportunity to work out a package deal in Congress where marriage is preserved and an egg and sperm law is enacted, but in exchange for supporting that, Congress also would make a law that recognized state civil unions as if they were marriages for purposes of federal law.  Thus, pursuing this compromise would be the fastest avenue to equal protections and benefits for same-sex couples and ending the divisive issue once and for all.  (And if Congress ever decides to make same-sex conception legal, we could turn all the civil unions into marriages automatically, since same-sex couples would then have all the same rights)


[ Parent ]
Dear Rep. Splaine (0.00 / 0)
I hope you have a chance to return to read the argument I lay out above, and i hope that you will add a clause to the civil union bill so that it gives all the rights, benefits and protections except the right to conceive children together.  I think this would be forward thinking and help New Hampshire couples have their civil unions recognized in other states and by the federal government.  That is much more important to actual couples than the right to attempt ridiculously risky and unnecessary genetic engineering.  Affirm that "love makes a family", protect couples from exploitation by disreputable fertility doctors, protect children from dangerous experiments, and affirm that all marriages have a right to conceive, and help same-sex couples nationwide, with those seven extra words.

Thank you.


will you be fighting (0.00 / 0)
against fertility treatments and artificial insemnation for different-sex couples, Mr. Howard?

How about those fertility drugs that result in multiple births? Surely a childless couple of any sort should just accept their childlessness, right?

NH Kucinich Campaign


[ Parent ]
Not really, no (0.00 / 0)
That is medicine, to restore health.  Quitting smoking is a treatment for infertility, as is taking vitamins or trying a new position.  And if it works, it is natural fertilization, the door is not opened to genetic engineering.  And it's private, we don't know how a couple conceived. 

I do feel though we should not allow a technique if it is prone to problems, but banning a particular technique or even IVF in general wouldn't publicly prohibit any marriage from conceiving together.  Every marriage would still have the right to combine their gametes, and they have the right to try to use some new medicine or technique or apparatus that has not been banned.  Because in principle, a man and a woman's genes are complementary and can be combined to create children.  But also in principle, the genes of two people of the same sex are not complementary and cannot be combined without genetic engineering.

But to answer your question, no I won't be fighting to stop IVF in principle, because I see it as a medical procedure to allow a marriage to exercise its right to combine gametes and conceive children together.  I might turn to fighting gamete donation (yes, for heterosexual couples too) after stopping genetic engineering, but its already happening and at least it is natural conception.


[ Parent ]
John Howard, there you are! (4.00 / 1)
Hi BHers.  Sorry, John Howard got out again.  He's been a regular spewer of egg & sperm "love" over at BlueMassGroup.com.  Sorry, someone must have left the cage unlocked.  John, you bad boy you, wandering over the state cyberline!  Now get back into MA-space where you belong and leave these nice NH folks alone!

Congrats NH on your path towards marriage equality!!!


Yes it's true (0.00 / 1)
They are quite worried that people will become aware of the Massachusetts biotech agenda and scuttle the whole thing.  Did you know that Massachusetts once held the patent for human cloning?  The first human cloned embryo was created with Massachusetts tax dollars in Worcester, Massachusetts, by the UMASS researchers that spun off into the private Advanced Cell Technologies corporation.  And now Massachusetts is counting on the laisez-faire unregulated biotech industry to feast on autonomous "reproductive rights" for GLBT people, to pay for more attractive city halls and brighter theatre districts and glossier magazines.
Basically, if New Hampshire gives same-sex couples the right to conceive children together and doesn't impede same-sex conception, Charlie gets to keep his opera gig, with its limitless wheels of brie, but if the biotech companies are shut off from the genetic engineering industry, Charlie is reduced to singing in the subway.  And David, well, he's a lawyer, and obviously working out the malpractice suits and parenting rights among the donors, surrogates, engineers and labs means lots of billing hours.  There's lots of money in this budding industry, and, even more appealing for Massachusetts liberals, lots of control.  They see nothing but profit and control if they could just engineer the children of all of us embarrassing human specimens all over the country.
Don't sign a blank check to Massachusetts, keep conception rights in New Hampshire bedrooms, not in Massachusetts labs.

[ Parent ]
Mr. Howard (0.00 / 0)
You have completely derailed this diary and changed its topic to your favorite hobby-horse. That is a form of trolling.

You are welcome to start your own diary on this separate topic.

You are not welcome to hijack another person's diary.

Time to make the donuts.


[ Parent ]
A competing civil union bill? (0.00 / 1)
Looks like there is a competing civil union bill by a Republican, Steve Vaillancourt, that is still in committee.  It is much more detailed, with specifics about how civil unions would interact with the rest of NH laws.  It also doesn't say that it gives "all the rights of marriage", only the protections and benefits.  HB 905

Here's the text of Rep Splaine's much more general "spousal union" bill that goes too far.  HB 437

BlueHampshire, do you think that same-sex couples should have conception rights?  Because by explicitly capitulating on that right, New Hampshire same-sex civil unions have a much better chance of being recognized by states that have enacted a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex couples that have "all the rights of marriage."  That added baggage is not worth the empty satisfaction.


Please Google News (0.00 / 0)
"Steve Vaillancourt" and you will see where that bill is headed.

[ Parent ]
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox