civil unions walk the aisle in New Hampshire, but what’s their future?

With New Hampshire poised to become the fourth state in the union to pass civil union legislation, the nation is watching to see what impact such a bill could have on the state and what role it will play in the national debate about same sex marriage.

House Bill 437, “an act permitting same gender couples to enter civil unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples,” is only a signature away from becoming law, with Gov. John Lynch’s support. Upon entering into a civil union, couples will be referred to the state’s marriage law in order to see the benefits they would then receive.

While civil unions bring gay couples one step closer to marriage equality, they still don’t grant the same status as marriage.
 

“I think New Hampshire has taken a solid step and now must turn to finishing the job. We’re not done in New Hampshire, because a civil union does not provide the full protection and respect that families need,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national organization that advocates for same sex marriage.  “The fact that New Hampshire is on the path to marriage equality, and that this year we’re seeing a record number of states with marriage bills and measures along the way, underscores that there is momentum for ending this discrimination.”

State Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), who co-sponsored HB 437, said the legislation is long overdue. “I’ve been openly gay for over 25 years and have lived in Portsmouth all my life, and I’ve seen a lot of discrimination,” Splaine said. “It’s time we break down borders and boundaries between people. I know change occurs slowly, but this is one way to take another big step towards equality.”

State Rep. Maureen Mooney (R-Merrimack) voted against the measure.

“If it’s a marriage, which is precisely what it is, why not call it that?” asked Mooney. She believes the bill was passed too quickly, and that by specifically targeting same sex couples, it answers to special interests without providing true equality and could be declared unconstitutional.

“Never have I seen an expedited process like that. What has come out of the house is a fraud,” she said.

Mooney co-sponsored an amendment that would have allowed any two people living together for a period of time to apply for a civil union. They could be siblings, parent and child, boyfriend and girlfriend, or boyfriend and boyfriend.

According to Mooney, her amendment, which failed 249-115, “would have resolved a lot of the questions and the biases that this civil union bill, this special interest civil union bill, is generating.” She noted that two of the four members of the judiciary subcommittee that authored much of the bill are members of the N.H. Freedom to Marry Coalition.

“Once the initial shock is over, I suspect it probably will go to court,” Mooney said. “There are so many issues to take this thing up in court, and if it doesn’t happen in the next two years I’ll be very surprised.” Mooney believes the Legislature should have used patience and made sure the legislation was right the first time. “Democrats are not even in their first year yet and this stuff gets rammed through with little discussion,” she said. 

The passage of HB 437 will also have an impact beyond New Hampshire’s borders. Marla Brettschneider, associate professor of political science and women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire, believes the debate will now shift to issues of reciprocity across state lines, such as whether New Hampshire will recognize rights granted to same-sex couples in other states. Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey are the only other states to have passed civil union legislation. Couples in Massachusetts enjoy full marriage equality, and Oregon just passed a domestic partnership bill.

Mooney believes this is one of the greatest flaws of the bill. “Upon the governor’s signature, New Hampshire will become the fourth state, only the fourth state, which means this is a brand new thread of law. We have no idea what other states are going to come out with in terms of civil union law,” Mooney said.

She believes that New Hampshire’s recognition of civil unions from other states could give some people extra benefits. If Texas passes a law that allows two brothers living together to be joined in a civil union and they move to New Hampshire, which would be forced to recognize their union, they would receive benefits that two brothers from New Hampshire could not. 

HB 437 will also affect the national campaign to secure the rights of those seeking civil unions. “The passage of civil union legislation in New Hampshire will make the national debate that much more interesting and that much more open to possibility,” Brettschneider said.

Wolfson agrees. “There is clearly wind in our sails and all across the country people are talking about why marriage discrimination hurts families and helps no one, and I expect to see progress as this conversation continues,” he said.

A rush of people moving here to take advantage of the civil union law is unlikely. But Brettscheider believes the bill will have some impact on the state’s demographics. According to her, statistics say that younger people favor gay rights and civil unions, and since New Hampshire is very much interested in attracting young people to the workforce, the passage of civil unions is good for the state’s profile.

“New Hampshire has a diverse work force already, and this would be another step along that road,” said Dick Ingram, president of the Greater Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce. Ingram dismissed concerns about the potential costs of increased benefits packages, which companies will have to offer same sex couples. “I honestly don’t foresee any concern about the implication of it from a strictly dollars and cents point of view,” he said.

Conversely, the legislation might also have a slight positive impact on the state’s economy through money spent on ceremonies and honeymoons, Splaine suggested.

The most vocal opposition to the legislation has come from people whose major concern is that civil unions will lead to the degradation of religious and family values in New Hampshire. Splaine recalled seeing a letter to the editor in a local paper that suggested God would be angered by the passage of civil unions and would inflict bad weather on New Hampshire for the rest of time. Proponents of the bill tried to emphasize its secular nature, claiming that civil unions have nothing to do with religion.

“Marriage and civil unions are really two separate issues. People’s religious views on marriage should be separate from the secular state legislation on civil unions. There is nothing that the state has done that will force anything upon any particular religious community,” Brettschneider said.

In other secular countries, such as Germany, Turkey, France, Argentina and Russia, all couples are required to be married by a representative of the state, and then, if they choose, by a religious authority. But in the United States, a civil ceremony is not required. The government recognizes any church-sanctioned marriage as a legally binding partnership.

In the United States, the government accepts the religious majority’s definition of marriage as law. Civil unions proponents find this unacceptable. “This isn’t a house of God, this is a house of law,” said Judy Nute, of the N.H. Freedom to Marry Coalition.

Some religions do recognize relationships between same sex couples. The South Church in Portsmouth, a Unitarian Universalist congregation, has been performing “holy unions” for same-sex couples for years. “A holy union ceremony is the same as a marriage ceremony—the same sentiments, the same format—but without the legal aspect,” church administrator Julie Slayton Frank said. “One of the things we talk about is the inherent worth and dignity of all people. All couples hold an equal weight.”

When HB 437 goes into effect in January 2008, there may be an increase in demand for more churches to hold ceremonies. But according to Frank, this legislation will not have a big impact on South Church. “We are thrilled that gay couples will be receiving legal rights, but we have been recognizing gay and lesbian couples for a long time,” she said.

Most civil union supporters believe the legislation will have little effect on New Hampshire. “I don’t think it will affect politics in New Hampshire at all,” Nute said. “Some people want to sensationalize this or make it into a partisan issue, but I just don’t believe it is. I think after the screaming settles down, nothing is going to happen.”

“It is not going to rock the world,” Splaine said. He believes that when stories and images of same-sex couples in long-term, loving relationships hit the public, people will realize that such unions are a positive thing. “In 2008 we will look back and say, ‘What was the big deal, what was the debate all about?’”