NH likely to pass "Spousal Unions" for Gays

[Smuttynose]

Civil Unions? Gay Marriage? Spousal Unions? Civil Partnerships?
New Hampshire Wrestles with Gay Rights union issue

CONCORD ? A proposal to legalize same-sex unions in New Hampshire could become a plan to allow gay marriage, the bill's sponsor said Friday.

Portsmouth Democratic Rep. James Splaine's bill to allow "spousal unions" for same-sex couples gets its first hearing Monday before the House Judiciary Committee. He said spousal unions, giving gay and lesbian couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as married couples, is a compromise ? a step above Vermont-style civil unions, but not quite civil marriage.

"This bill specifically does what I think we really need to do for giving total marriage equality in the state for same-sex partners ? without the word," said Splaine, who is openly gay.

Gay rights leaders, many of them new state legislators swept into office during a Democratic wave in November, said they will oppose any legislation that stops short of full marriage.

While neighboring New England states have approved civil unions and marriage, New Hampshire bans gays from marrying and does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Monday's hearing will be the first time Hampshire legislators consider giving legal recognition to same-sex couples.

"I believe that this is what we can do in New Hampshire," Splaine said.

At the same time, Splaine said he wants to push his proposal further and plans to offer an amendment Monday to expand marriage to gays.

"That would take the next step, which is using the term marriage," he said.

Splaine is optimistic that with the public's growing acceptance of gays and lesbians and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, this is the year same-sex couples will be granted some type of legal status.

"It's a little easier to talk about issues relating to how we treat one another as ever before," he said. "This is our chance."

But not everyone in the gay community is happy with Splaine's spousal union bill.

Mo Baxley, a freshman Democratic lawmaker and executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said she will oppose anything that stops sort of marriage.

As a Judiciary Committee member, Baxley will find herself voting against Splaine's bill unless the marriage amendment is accepted.

"It does put us in an awkward position and I think that's unfortunate," she said.

Baxley is sponsor of a competing bill to permit gay marriage.

"I disagree with (Splaine) that you can compromise on equality and you can be a little bit equal," she said. "He may have good intentions but he's wrong."

Also on Monday the committee will consider a bill to repeal a 2004 law passed in reaction to Massachusetts' introduction of gay marriage. Barrington Rep. Marlene DeChane is sponsor of the proposal to get rid of the law banning recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.

"People enter in agreements in other states on other issues and we recognize all of that," she said. "What I'm trying to do is (say) you have rights, responsibilities and obligations under your contract in your state and we should recognize that."

Several other bills relating to same-sex couples and adoption, state employee health benefits and other domestic partner benefits have been proposed in the Legislature.

On the other end, gay marriage opponents have renewed their quest to add a gay marriage ban to the state constitution. Amendment supporters say marriage must be reserved for heterosexuals to protect children and families.

 

[lexicon506]

This is great. I'm not gay, but I see this as proof that society here in New England is a step ahead of the rest of the country. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I love living in a place that can actually make social progress, unlike the rest of the country which is held back by christian extremists and such.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

Mo Baxley, a freshman Democratic lawmaker and executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said she will oppose anything that stops sort of marriage.

As a supporter of full gay marriage, I must say that lady's a retard. They are looking to give gay people every single right and responsibility of marriage but call it a different name, and she says that's not good enough. Full marriage would of course be better, but jesus, take what you can get lady.

 

[statler]

It's the exact same type of water fountain, but are they happy, nooo! They have to share ours! Jeeze why can't they just take what they can get?

 

[bosdevelopment]

This is great. I'm not gay, but I see this as proof that society here in New England is a step ahead of the rest of the country. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I love living in a place that can actually make social progress, unlike the rest of the country which is held back by christian extremists and such.

yes, Christian extremists and such...

 

[Patrick]

It's the exact same type of water fountain, but are they happy, nooo! They have to share ours! Jeeze why can't they just take what they can get?

Statler, if I may, I'd like to clarify your point (if indeed I understand you correctly) as I fear it may have flown over the heads of others (and perhaps myself too if I dont get this right).

It is that exact same attitude that would have left blacks and whites segregated had black schools and drinking fountains and buses etc. been required to be qualitatively similar to white schools and drinking fountains and buses etc.

In other words, things would be A LOT different today, and arguably for the worse, if we had adopted that standpoint as a nation during the civil rights era. Hopefull I got that one right, because I agree :wink:

There are some advantages to pursuing a liberal education as opposed to entering a "job factory" where you are taught to focus on maximum gain for lowest cost....somethings are not able to be reduced to economic equations. Just something to think about Dude, not that Bentley is a bad institution.

 

[Patrick]

This is great. I'm not gay, but I see this as proof that society here in New England is a step ahead of the rest of the country. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I love living in a place that can actually make social progress, unlike the rest of the country which is held back by christian extremists and such.

I agree.

 

[statler]

In other words, things would be A LOT different today, and arguably for the worse, if we had adopted that standpoint as a nation during the civil rights era. Hopefull I got that one right, because I agree :wink:

Yeah you've got it. I was going for a snarky subtly, something I don't generally do well.
To be fair, the two situations aren't exactly analogous, but the principles involved are similar.

 

[Patrick]

In other words, things would be A LOT different today, and arguably for the worse, if we had adopted that standpoint as a nation during the civil rights era. Hopefull I got that one right, because I agree :wink:

Yeah you've got it. I was going for a snarky subtly, something I don't generally do well.
To be fair, the two situations aren't exactly analogous, but the principles involved are similar.

Principles always transcend specifications, in my opinion. that is to say, regardless of the situation, "its the principle" of the whole thing that matters, no matter how small or large the ramifications of acting or not acting according to such principles. In my opinion, the potential consequences of not adhering to principles regardless of the situation are reason enough to always follow as you would, and apply the same reasoning as you would, if the situation were of more importance. Now Im rambling, as I do, and it has little to do witht he artcile, so Ill stop. But yeah, I see your point.

 

[Scott]

I doubt this would not have been possible in NH this time last year before their local Democratic landslide.

 

[LeTaureau]

We'll see if this happens in NH, they can't even pass a smoking ban

 

[statler]

We'll see if this happens in NH, they can't even pass a smoking ban

I dunno, they tend to take the whole 'Live Free or Die' thing pretty seriously up there. This seems like a pretty libertarian-friendly law (unlike the smoking ban). I could see this going through.

 

[palindrome]

It's the exact same type of water fountain, but are they happy, nooo! They have to share ours! Jeeze why can't they just take what they can get?

Statler, if I may, I'd like to clarify your point (if indeed I understand you correctly) as I fear it may have flown over the heads of others (and perhaps myself too if I dont get this right).

It is that exact same attitude that would have left blacks and whites segregated had black schools and drinking fountains and buses etc. been required to be qualitatively similar to white schools and drinking fountains and buses etc.

In other words, things would be A LOT different today, and arguably for the worse, if we had adopted that standpoint as a nation during the civil rights era. Hopefull I got that one right, because I agree :wink:

There are some advantages to pursuing a liberal education as opposed to entering a "job factory" where you are taught to focus on maximum gain for lowest cost....somethings are not able to be reduced to economic equations. Just something to think about Dude, not that Bentley is a bad institution.

thank you for clearing that up, i had no idea what he was talking about. :lol:


Anyways, last semester i made a prediction in my political science class that gay marriage will start in new england and spread. The teacher laughed at me. Since that prediction, new jersey and now possibly new hampshire will have joined the ranks of MA, CT, VT, CA, HW and Maine.

 

[Patrick]

bravo, you have got to be the first accurately-predicting social scientist.


Im allowed to say they are always wrong, I have a B.A. (or should I say b.s. and no not for bach of science) in Political Science.

 

[palindrome]

yeah, its a very opiniated subject to say the least.

 

[statler]

yeah, its a very opiniated subject to say the least.

But why?
Usually, I can see both sides of an issue. The abortion debate I get. Gun control, sure. Smoking bans, casinos, etc..there are logical, well thought out arguments to be made on both sides of all these issues.
But this? I just don't understand. l have yet to hear any logical argument against gay marriage. And yet it remains one of the most divisive issues in today's society.
I don't get it. :?

 

[Smuttynose]

Compared to other parts of the country, New England as a whole is quite progressive...

Utah moves to block gay student clubs
Legislation is reaction to gay/straight alliance at Provo High School

Legislation regulating student clubs, particularly those supporting gay students, is still awaiting the governor's signature, but warnings are already being sounded about potential impacts -- and they go beyond the issue of allowing gay/straight alliance chapters in Utah's public schools.

"This is really broad policy," said Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation for the Utah Office of Education. "To write this -- the seventh iteration of a bill -- in a compressed time frame is not the best way to write state policy.

"There's a lot of vague language in it that I'm not sure is constitutionally enforceable."

Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, says the bill's provisions were taken from state school board rules, and give parents more control. Tilton sponsored the bill.

Lear's concern is shared by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, which sent a letter to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. urging him to veto the bill.

The letter cites portions of the bill that require clubs to "maintain the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior" and prohibit clubs that "violate concepts of civility or propriety appropriate to a school setting."

The "ambiguous" language could put school districts on the wrong side of the federal Equal Access Act, which bans action against a student meeting "on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings."

"No matter how creative their attempts, legislators cannot get around the requirements of the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment," states the ACLU's letter.

"We're still reviewing the bill," said Lisa Roskelley, a spokeswoman for Huntsman. The governor has until March 20 to sign or veto the legislation; if he takes no action, it becomes law.

Tilton said he's scheduled to meet with Huntsman on Friday to discuss it.

"There are no constitutional provisions that were brought up by our legislative research," Tilton said. "A majority of the bill is actually adopted from state board rules and school board rules."

What the bill mainly does, he said, is require parental consent for a student to participate in a club.

"Parental consent was not mandated," he said of previous rules, which allowed for parental notification instead. "The state should have a policy that parental rights are paramount for consent, not just notification."

He also dismissed concerns that districts will draw lawsuits by implementing the bill: "Not gonna happen," Tilton said.

Lear doesn't share his confidence.

One concern is what the expanded regulation of clubs could mean for school district liability. The new rules would require districts to approve the club's name, statement of purpose, meeting dates and budget, which is a higher level of involvement than simply providing a supervised meeting place.

"They can't do that without assuming more liability than they want" for club activities, including high-risk endeavors like skiing, rodeo and hockey, Lear said. "The district's going to be hard-pressed to say, 'We didn't have that much responsibility.' "

As for challenges over First Amendment concerns, Lear said those are less likely to lead to litigation: "Usually, we just kind of work through the issues."

Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General's Office, said staff members there haven't reviewed the version of the bill that passed.

"We were familiar with the original version of the bill, but it's morphed several times," he said. "No one is comfortable to comment on its current state."

This legislation was first considered in the 2006 legislative session as a reaction to the formation of a gay/straight alliance chapter at Provo High School.

Chapters have existed at other Utah schools for years without incident and the Provo club disbanded after a few months. GSA clubs describe themselves as a forum in which students can discuss issues such as tolerance and diversity, and members frequently organize service projects.

 

[Patrick]

Politics is nothing more than opinionated debate.

these opinions are rooted in values, and values depend on specific background information and historical circumstances.

Both sides of the political spectrum want the same thing: the highest standard of living for themselves and their constituents. However, since this is a value-based goal, and since specific background information and historical circumstances differ greatly from group to group, it is next to impossible to agree on what exactly is "the highest standard of living for us all (that which brings one side up without putting the other down). Thus, what you get is a frustrating push-pull over the years that everyone hopes will even out and by luck produce the fairest outcome. After all, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others.

That's my opinion.

 

[Patrick]

yeah, its a very opiniated subject to say the least.

But why?
Usually, I can see both sides of an issue. The abortion debate I get. Gun control, sure. Smoking bans, casinos, etc..there are logical, well thought out arguments to be made on both sides of all these issues.
But this? I just don't understand. l have yet to hear any logical argument against gay marriage. And yet it remains one of the most divisive issues in today's society.
I don't get it. :?

What do peiople value the most in life, Statler? the answer is whatever they "value." A vague answer, perhaps, but not one without a point. the point is that what people value is rooted in religion (more often than not0 and religion has historically been a slow-to-change institution, so despite the illogicality of being against gay marriage today, many people who still rely on their organized religion for sound advice on how to live still feed off of what they are told by an outdated section of church philosophy (one which bases its assessment of gay marriage and homosexuality in general on outdated but previously logical thinking). that's the way I see it.

 

[statler]

Eh, the religion angle is a bit of a crutch methinks. There are plenty of openly gay and deeply religious people (including a gay bishop) and many many more deeply religious people who are supportive of gay rights.

But you are right, a lot of people use their religious beliefs to hide behind, because it is eaiser than just saying they think gay sex is 'icky'. To be honest, I really believe that is what it all boils down to. People think gay sex is gross. But it's hard to discriminate based on that, so they come up all sorts of crazy 'family values' and 'killing traditional marriage' arguments.
I don't know, the whole thing just annoys me.