Bid to ban gay unions rejected 

House votes 207 to 125 against amendment 

By Eric Moskowitz

Concord Monitor

March 22, 2006

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reject a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The idea needed three-fifths approval from the full House - 240 of the 400 members - to succeed. But it earned little more than half that, with lawmakers killing the proposed amendment, 207 to 125.

Rep. Jim MacKay of Concord, an opponent of the amendment, said the vote reaffirmed his faith in the House.

"The Legislature demonstrated once again that it's a reasonable body that deals with things in a fair, responsible way. They don't like prejudice. They don't like hate,"said MacKay, a Republican, calling the proposal a "not-so-hidden"attempt to add discrimination to the state Constitution.

New Hampshire law prohibits gay marriage. Two years ago, the state passed an additional measure to block the recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside New Hampshire, in reaction to a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in that state.

Proponents of the amendment warned yesterday that, as in Massachusetts, New Hampshire's laws could also be overturned by "activist judges" determined to "legislate from the bench." They called for an amendment to protect the state's marriage laws from the Supreme Court.

Opponents of the amendment included those who would support gay marriage or civil unions as well as those who would oppose them but do not favor using the Constitution to restrict rights - especially over an issue on which public opinion could shift.

The amendment would have defined marriage between one man and one woman as the only union legally recognized in New Hampshire. To take effect, it needed three-fifths approval in the House, three-fifths approval in the Senate and two-thirds approval on a statewide ballot. Supporters urged House members to vote for the proposal even if they opposed the idea so it could be presented to the voters.

"Whether you personally agree with me (or not), I hope we can all agree that this is such an important issue that the people we represent should be allowed to vote on this constitutional amendment,"said Rep. Michael Balboni, the Nashua Republican who served as primary sponsor for the proposal.

That argument failed to gain traction, despite - or perhaps because of - what seemed like an attempt to dare opponents into voting for it.

"There's a big giant out there, and it's called the voters. And if you forget the voters, they won't forget you" at election time, said Rep. Paul Brassard of Manchester, a cosponsor of the proposed amendment.

Brassard was one of only five Democrats to vote in support of the amendment. He served on the Commission to Study all Aspects of Same-Sex Civil Marriage, a Legislature-appointed body created in 2004 as an offshoot of the law that blocked recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside New Hampshire.

The commission was supposed to study all aspects of gay marriage and civil unions, including how they would affect benefits in New Hampshire that are allocated on the basis of marital and next-of-kin relationships. The commission held a series of meetings across the state over 16 months. The discourse was marked as much by angry outbursts as debate, and the majority produced a report that called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The commission also ventured into nonlegal matters, such as whether homosexuality is a choice and how gay and lesbian parents compare with heterosexual ones.

The minority on the commission called the work "nearly a complete failure" and "a disgrace." That minority position was validated on the House floor by Rep. Richard "Stretch" Kennedy, a Contoocook Republican.  Kennedy, who did not serve on the commission, said the group's work had devolved into a "hissy fit." He broke into tears describing how he felt the body had disgraced the Legislature, making a "mockery" of the "freest state in the freest country."

Kennedy said afterward that he neither supports nor opposes gay marriage or civil unions. The commission was supposed to perform a comprehensive study that would help him and other legislators make a decision, he said, but it failed in its mission.

That left Kennedy with no choice but to urge lawmakers to kill the constitutional amendment. "We don't have the honest answers," he said. "I don't care what those answers are, but we should make sure they're right" before voting.

After the vote, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican, congratulated MacKay, who served on the commission and helped write the minority report. "Total repudiation of the same-sex marriage commission," Vaillancourt said.

At the same time, the vote does not extend any rights, nor is it a sign that gay marriage or civil unions will be legalized in New Hampshire in the near future, MacKay said. "The climate is not ready for that kind of vote at this point," he said.

Proponents of the amendment seemed resigned to defeat.  Sen. Jack Barnes, a Raymond Republican, had testified in the House Judiciary Committee last month, urging the committee to recommend the amendment and help send it on to the Senate. Instead, the committee voted 14 to 7 to recommend killing the amendment, setting the stage for its defeat yesterday.

Outside Representatives Hall, Barnes said he never expected the proposal to gain many supporters in the House. He also said he would not draft a new resolution this year, as a way to bring the matter to a vote in the Senate before next fall's elections.

"We knew that right off. It was a done deal," said Barnes, adding that House members had been afraid to touch the political "third rail" of gay marriage and civil unions. He did not think the defeat of the amendment would set the stage for either in New Hampshire in the near future.

"It doesn't set any scene," he said. "It's a vote of people who are afraid of the third rail."

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/REPOSITORY/603220346/1037/48HOURS