Opponents of a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages turned out in force in Concord last week as the House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the amendment.

More than 100 people spoke, most in opposition to the amendment. The tone was measured and civil, unlike the emotionally charged testimony that was given at many public hearings last year.

The Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution, CACR 34, states, “A marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Members of a legislative study committee charged with examining how the state should approach the subject of same-sex marriages and civil unions recommended the amendment in December 2005. New Hampshire law already prohibits same-sex marriages, but supporters of the amendment say changing the constitution is the only way to prevent “judicial activism” from overturning that law.

Rep. Michael Balboni (R-Nashua) is the amendment’s prime sponsor. He kicked off the day’s testimony with a warning.

“Make no mistake,” he said. “Court cases are coming soon.” He says the amendment “immunizes” the state from court cases, like the one in Massachusetts that paved the way for recognition of same sex marriages. The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.

“I and the vast majority of people in New Hampshire, do not want what happened in Massachusetts to happen here,” he said.

More support came from Rep. Nancy Elliot (R-Merrimack), who said that allowing same-sex marriages will open the door to all sorts of non-traditional unions.

“When you open up the definition of marriage, you can’t deny any other group, whether it’s a man and a family member … or a man and an animal,” she said.

However, opponents to the amendment outnumbered supporters almost three to one. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), a member of the study committee, objected to the bill in both legislative and political terms.

“What you’re doing is legislating for the future, and we have no right to legislate for the future,” he said.

Vaillancourt, citing the recent attack on a gay bar in New Bedford, Mass., as an example, called homophobia and bigotry a “pernicious disease.”

“There is a cure,” he said. “It lies in each and every one of you … the first inoculation is to say no to this amendment.”

Meanwhile, Marcus Hurn, a professor and associate dean at the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said members of the gay and lesbian community of New Hampshire are “committed to the democratic process” and want to work through the legislature, not the courts.

Hurn also took issue with the language of the amendment. Because there is no statute that defines what exactly a union is, calling marriage between a man and a woman the “only legal union” the state recognizes could lead to problems with adoptions, custody issues and other things that could be considered a union.

“The lack of clarity is an invitation to judicial activism,” Hurn said. “Somehow I think this thing was drafted with a crayon.”

Religious groups also had a strong turnout at the hearing, with most opposing the amendment.
There were some exceptions, though. Liz Feren, a representative of the Diocese of Manchester, said the amendment will go a long way toward protecting the traditional definition of marriage, which she said is in danger.

“There are enormous costs associated with a breakdown of marriage, actual and psychological, and they take a tremendous toll on the people of our state. We should do everything we can to strengthen marriage as it has existed throughout history, not redefine it,” she said.

However, the Rev. Mark Hamilton of the First Parish United Church of Christ in Rochester called the amendment “discriminatory and prejudicial.”

“It’s not about special rights, it’s a matter of equal rights,” he said.

The amendment will need a three-fifths supermajority to make it out of the House and the Senate. If the amendment does make it to the ballot, a two-thirds majority of voters would have to approve it before it could take effect.