I was working on another post when I learned some good news from the Granite State. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “in a bipartisan 243-129 vote, the New Hampshire State House passed civil unions legislation that would give same-sex couples the exact same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples in the state.“
While this blog is normally at odds with HRC and its Democrat-loving President Joe Solmonese, I agree with him that, “This is a tremendous step forward for same-sex couples in New Hampshire.” I wish he had noted that unlike its neighbor to the West, the New Hampshire state legislature passed this bill without being compelled to do so by the state Supreme Court (as was the case in Vermont).
As I have long said, I believe it is the province of the state legislature to decide issues of marriage and civil unions. What’s important here is that while the Granite State is one of the nation’s smallest (in terms of population), it has the nation’s largest State House of Representatives. Indeed, it boasts being the “the third-largest parliamentary body in the English speaking world. Only the U.S. Congress and Britain’s Parliament are larger.” Thus, these representatives representing very small constituencies are very close to the people, the true model of citizen legislators our founders envisioned. Their vote for the bill suggests that there is popular support for civil unions.
Joe Solmonese is right. This is indeed a tremendous step forward. That it took place in the elected state legislature suggests there is a consensus emerging, at least in the Northeast, for civil unions.
Now that Solmonese is cheered by these results, let’s hope that he and other gay leaders focus not on convincing unelected judges of the merits of state recognition of gay unions but on making their case to the people and their elected representatives.
I think the real news waiting to be uncovered is why a state the size of New Hampshire needs a legislative body with at least 372 people!
Matt, actually, it has a membership of 400! But, it seems they have multiple representatives for each district.
Great news for New Hampshire! I hear that the Illinois House is well on its way to passing something similar…again without a court mandate.
Just to add my $0.02 to the size of the NH legislature – it has to do with the typical “town hall” mentality in New England. Most if not all of the New England states have large legislatures to ensure a more “direct democracy.”
In our big ole state of Texas, our House has only 146 representatives and our state Senate has 31 senators. Contrast that to these smaller states.
Regards,
Peter H.
I just got news that there will be a formation of Equality South Dakota. We have a very long way to go before we are as good as other states on gay rights and marriage.
HM, yes you’re right about Illinois. But I about spit out my Cheerios when I read this in my local paper.
while thankfully new hampshire’s elected body moved forward on gay unions, the germination for all this began with a court ruling. the tragedy of the situation is not with an activist court but the lack of moral values and the concept of what America is about in our elected officals.
yes, a nice little movement forward in the gay movement, whether you be liberal or conservative. too bad it was laced with attacks against liberals, the HRC, the Judiciary.
Speaking of which, why do you always criticize the “unelected” judiciary? the whole point of having judges appointed for long term / life so that they would be able to do their jobs with the possibility of political intrusion onto their duties as judges. Worked out for most of our history, but in modern times it seems to have floundered a bit. Don’t forget that it was the “unelected” conservative majority of the supreme court that appointed Bush to the presidency, thank you very much. Bet you wouldn’t have a problem with this “unelected” judges if more of them ruled in favor of conservatives.
William Leob must be spinning in his grave.
I think the real news waiting to be uncovered is why a state the size of New Hampshire needs a legislative body with at least 372 people
Mostly because of the structure of New Hampshire’s local government. The legislators have very small consituencies. My state house members are my neighbors and people I know. This is the first state I ever lived in, where I bump in to my state representatives on at least a weekly basis. One of them has a daughter in the school I work at, I see him daily. I sort of like that up close and personal aspect.
As for the civil unions law, there have been several “gay” union bills proposed and debated over the last month or so.
There was a proposal for outright marriage, but they didn’t have the votes on that and a signature from the governor on that one was also unsure (Lynch is a democrat, but he has been totally close lipped on this issue). I can’t remember if this bill was killed or voted down.
A few weeks ago there was also a proposal to recognize any marriages that are legal in another state (can’t remember the exact wording sorry, but the result would have been homosexuals in NH could have gotten married in Mass and their marriages would have been recognized in NH). That bill was defeated if I remember correctly-although they may have voted to table it.
The current bill has been debated for a few weeks now, and passage in the senate seems pretty certain. Lynch is still the big question mark, but most people seem to think he will sign a civil union bill, and I think it will pass, because this bill brought over several legislators that were balking at the earlier marriage bill.
in regards to activist judges…you mean like antonin scalia, clarence thomas, john roberts and sam alito?? weren’t they all dissenters in the oregon death-with-dignity act, where they tried to overturn the twice-elected position of oregon voters? yea.
#9: Hey vaara, the name is William Loeb (not Leob). He was the editor of the Manchester Union Leader (of Ed Muskie standing-on-a-flatbed-truck-and-crying fame). And yes, he must be spinning in his grave right now. A good thing. Yea, New Hampshire! That’s the way to achieve marriage equality: through the legislative process, start with civil unions,etc.
Maine’s legislature isn’t nearly the size of the Granite State’s. We have 151 representatives & 35 Senators. Plus 2 non-voting tribal reps.
#6 – John – Sterilization! That’s crazy…time to break out the family tree and confirm that HM-partner and I aren’t related 🙂
Well NH probably would not have done it if not for the result in Mass. Remember at first VT seemed radical. Now all the states realize marriage could be an issue so it’s now more politically expedient to pass a civil union law. It has nothing to do with activist judges and everything to do with politics.
#14 and that’s why I’m all for overturning Ohio’s ammendment, when the legislature is ready to tackle it like adults.
I’d not look to Taxachusluts as a model for this though. After all, the legislators abandonded their duty to the will of the people. NH goverment, followed the will of their people.