Marriage Equality Bill Makes It Out of Committee

I know I shouldn't laugh; (0.00 / 0)

after all, it's really important to get law right, and devilishly hard to write bills to ensure no monkey business, but this part of the bill had me laughing for it's sheer linguistic explosion of relations and apostrophes:

457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father's brother, father's sister, mother's brother, mother's sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son's son, son's daughter, daughter's son, daughter's daughter, brother's son, brother's daughter, sister's son, sister's daughter, father's brother's son, father's brother's daughter, mother's brother's son, mother's brother's daughter, father's sister's son, father's sister's daughter, mother's sister's son, or mother's sister's daughter .

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:06:57 PM CDT

Specificity (4.00 / 2)

Yes, Dean.  It is a bit funny.  Most of that is in current law, of course, and has been there for many years.  That sentence, though, took us extra work and double-checking in the drafting process. I guess it's called "specificity."  

If you look at a lot of New Hampshire's laws (and I dare think those of other states as well), you could fill your Jay Leno time with laughs of your own as you fall asleep.  BUT, don't miss Jay Leno Thursday night!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:16:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

on the other hand... (0.00 / 0)

We have HB415  which, if we are to believe the Republicans, mandates unisex bathrooms without ever mentioning anything directly related to plumbing fixtures.  

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 13:36:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL Good Point, Tim... (0.00 / 0)

...and an unfunded man date too.  Can't let that happen!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:43:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

Now I have to wonder why 'ancestor, descendant, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or cousin' wouldn't work. Taken very specifically, the current law doesn't appear to actually prohibit any intergenerational relationships beyond grandparents - so a great-granddad could marry his great-granddaughter? And I don't think I'm missing any cases with my set of seven from the above list. Anyone know why they wouldn't have gone with the shorter, simpler set in the first place?

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

---

by: RealNRH @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:35:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't 'cousin' a pretty loose term? (0.00 / 0)

Even before we get to the "twice removed" there are the second- and third- cousins.

There are a lot of folks who are my cousin - all my closer relatives swear! - and I don't have a clue just how.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 19:26:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just a small point (4.00 / 1)

All of those kinda second, third, twice-removed things are clearly laid out in probate law. I'm surprised that wasn't just some consanguity language from probate law you couldn't borrow...

---

by: measurestaken @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 23:22:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

De-gendering: (4.00 / 1)

457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father's brother, father's sister, mother's brother, mother's sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son's son, son's daughter, daughter's son, daughter's daughter, brother's son, brother's daughter, sister's son, sister's daughter, father's brother's son, father's brother's daughter, mother's brother's son, mother's brother's daughter, father's sister's son, father's sister's daughter, mother's sister's son, or mother's sister's daughter.

457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her parent, parent's sibling, child, sibling, child's child, sibling's child, or parent's sibling's child.

Those seem to be equivalent - does assuming that the rules for Men and Women must be different complicate life?

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 19:33:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Passionate And Intelligent Debate By Democrats (4.00 / 1)

I'll write more later -- we need to do a lot of things the next few days to see full marriage equality for New Hampshire occur now, and it can.  

But for now I just want to mention the passionate and intelligent debate by House Judiciary Committee Democrats.  Of the 11 Dems, 9 supported the bill:  Reps. Brendon Browne of Dover, Paul Hackel of Nashua, David Nixon of Manchester, Fran Potter of Concord, Gary Richardson of Hopkinton, Bob Thompson of Manchester, Janet Wall of Madbury, Rick Waltrous of Concord, and Lucy Weber of Walpole.  One Republican, Tony DiFruscia of Windham, was the 10th supporter.  

We did lose two Democrats, each of whom I respect so I won't say anything negative about their votes.  Of those who spoke in defense of the bill, I have to single out Gary Richardson and Lucy Weber, each of whom did much to make the Civil Unions Law a reality two years ago.  Bob Thompson, a first-termer from Manchester, was also extra-fantastic.  

With most Democrats on the Committee supporting the bill, I'm hoping the House Democratic Caucus will get behind it next week.  Call your favorite Legislator(s)!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:12:20 PM CDT

Jim, I don't mind that you refuse to say (0.00 / 0)

anything negative about their votes, but I do think you should have mentioned the two Democrats by name who opposed the bill and it would be helpful to hear an explanation.

Both David Cote (D-Nashua) and Philip Preston (D-Ashland) are in leadership positions, with Cote chairing the committee and Preston serving as clerk.

So their views do carry weight and should be explored.

---

by: Ron Tunning @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:29:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Respect goes both ways (4.00 / 1)

David Cote and Philip Preston voted to keep all gays and lesbians such as you and me as second class citizens, segregated under the law.  You say that you respect them, but they clearly don't respect you.

Any self respecting gay person should be mad as hell at them.  I am.

---

by: brianrater @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:07:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jim - is there a chance to attach a resolution (0.00 / 0)

asking our delegation in Washington to eliminate the federal discrimination against New Hampshire civil unions?

Our state voted to make civil unions legally equal to marriage. But DOMA means no Social Security benefits to family members, nor even "filing jointly" status.

The states that have adopted some form of equal treatment for both same- and different-sex couples should be demanding that Washington accept their decision.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:08:13 PM CDT

It's About More Than Just DOMA... (4.00 / 1)

Of course, I'm very pleased we passed Civil Unions in 2007 -- I was sponsor of that bill along with the late State Representative Dana Hilliard of Somersworth. and with many others helping the cause, we did something good.  It has worked well, with 646 Civil Unions now commemorated.  However, Civil Unions are still "separate and unequal."  Companies and corporations can decide not to recognize Civil Unions if their contracts specify "marriage."  It is still back of the bus.  Which married straight couple would defer their marriage for a Civil Union?

Those of us who fought for Civil Unions in 2007 knew it was a step -- an important one, a giant one, but a step toward full equality.  Full equality is important because it also contributes toward breaking down other areas of discrimination.

I know that our friends in Washington are working to be sure that once DOMA is eliminated, those states not yet able to upgrade "Civil Unions" will be able to give some federal benefits to those couples so recognized, as well as other domestic partnership relationships.  BUT, those relationships and Civil Unions in various states are still not "marriage."  

I keep telling my Legislative colleagues that we need that for our gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, and family members who are willing to share their love and caring for one another.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:11:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't mean "instead of" (0.00 / 0)

I support the marriage equality bill.

But I haven't seen the states act yet to make the federalism case: "DC must respect our state decision!"

That should also be happening.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:20:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh I Understand... (4.00 / 2)

...and sorry if I inferred otherwise.  I know our friends are working on making the repeal of DOMA work positively for all the states currently offering some equality.  I'm hoping we can focus next week's debate on passing House Bill 436, and then getting it into the Senate for an affirmative vote.

And I have much respect for Governor John Lynch and appreciate that he is allowing us to have this dialogue and I'm hoping that if it reaches his desk he will consider the option of allowing it to become law, so my focus is on passing what's in front of us without adding other issues to it.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:29:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pass This Bill (4.00 / 2)

Pass this bill this year.  It is the best opportunity New Hampshire has ever had, and we can't depend on having a better opportunity in the future. It is the right thing to do.


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:34:48 PM CDT

Kathy -- Your Support Has Been Vital (0.00 / 0)

If it is possible for you to talk with, or pass your words onto, House members who will be making the decision about how enthusiastically to support marriage equality next Tuesday, it would be most useful.  

I agree this is our best chance to pass this legislation in the foreseeable future -- there is focus on the need to do this now, then we can put the issue behind us as one more great Democratic accomplishment.  Let's do it!  Thanks for your leadership.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:59:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Dog That Didn't Bark (4.00 / 2)

Well-intentioned, good-hearted legislators who have been generally supportive of greater civil rights for gay people have sometimes been concerned about "getting out ahead" of the public. They have worried about creating a backlash in people who think the state is forcing this on them. Now we have data.

It's largely a non-issue. Civil unions became law, gay couples joined, newspaper society pages became a bit more diverse.  There were no great marches protesting it. There were no legislators - so far as I know - thrown out for supporting civil unions.

There is no backlash to guard against. Cautious legislators, you have acted deliberately and respectfully. The spirit in which you offered the compromise of civil unions is appreciated - but that compromise isn't really needed today.

Thanks for letting us get our toes wet. We're ready to jump in.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:34:13 PM CDT

Why does the bill make reference to specific religions? (4.00 / 1)

I haven't spent time thinking about how this fits into existing law, so I'm not passing judgment, but I'm hoping someone could explain it.

Also, it says each religious institution makes its own decisions about which marriages fit their religion.  What about religious leader, whose legal ability to perform marriage ceremonies is derived from being a religious leader, who wishes to perform certain marriages in defiance of their institution?

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:48:50 PM CDT

Good Question... (4.00 / 2)

...actually, an amendment has been offered by the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee that had recommended the bill last week by a 3-2 vote to remove references to the specific religions.  Current law and a provision in the bill allowing for individual choice on performing marriages covers that.  The amendment clarifies that confusion.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:20:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for clearing that up. (0.00 / 0)

This is a critical distinction.  Religious institutions have a right to decide what happens in their buildings, but nobody has any right to tell anyone duly qualified to perform a marriage whom they may or may not marry--including the government (excluding anyone paid by the government for such purposes--they should serve all comers).

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 23:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On that I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Religous organizations do have a right to tell their clergy what they can do. It is basically a  condition of the employment to adhere to a certain set of beliefs. If you want to be a member of that clergy, either you go along with the core beliefs or you leave.  If a Catholic priest, for example, wants to defy the institution on gay marriage, then he should leave the Church, or accept tthe consequences that he will be given the old boot. It is part of the job qualifications that you follow the institution's beliefs.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 07:14:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Within the confines of the institution, sure. (0.00 / 0)

But on one's own time, in a neutral location, and with neutral resources?

Government has neither the responsibility nor the right to enforce any religion's teachings, except insofar as any institution may dictate its own function.  What one does outside the institution is one's own.

The state has the power to grant licenses to individuals.  Even if the terms of one's employment are so constricting as to control what one does on one's own time, let that be a matter of contract between the employer and the employee. There should not be a special grant of undue authority over employees' execution of a civic privilege by the state to private institutions.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 17:15:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

7/24/365 (0.00 / 0)

If you are a member of the clergy, it is not something you do part time.  You sign on to those beliefs 7/24/365, so there is no neutral location for a Catholic priest, for example, to perform a same sex marriage.  

If I'm not mistaken, this is the section you are referring to:

No court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission shall compel, prevent, or interfere in any way with any religious institution's decisions about marriage eligibility within that particular faiths' tradition.

 

That is quite the opposite from the government giving religous institutions a special privilige; it is just saying that individuals can't force clergy to perform marriages, and by extension that religous institutions can tell its own clergy what to do within their tradition.  What is wrong with that?  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 17:28:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wasn't referencing the law. (0.00 / 0)

I was stating a principle.  Contracts are contracts and the terms are what they are, but government should not be in the business of binding people to their employer's belief system beyond what's voluntarily agreed to.

What you're saying shouldn't be written into the law, if for no other reason than that not every religion sees its religious leaders the way you just described.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 17:41:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Apologies To Former NH St. Rep. Dana Hilliard (0.00 / 0)

On at least three occasions in recent days, in public and in writing, I referred to "...the late St. Rep. Dana Hilliard of Somersworth..." when referencing our cosponsorship of the Civil Unions Law in 2007.  I'm obviously embarrassed by my senior moment.  He is "the former" and is doing quite well in Somersworth, taking a break from state politics but very much involved in the politics and leadership of his community.  I hope word of his early demise hasn't worried his many good friends.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 18:46:03 PM CDT