N.H. Civil Unions Bill Passes Legislature
by The Associated Press

Posted: April 26, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) New Hampshire lawmakers voted Thursday to authorize civil unions and sent the measure to Gov. John Lynch, who announced last week that he would sign it.

"This legislation is a matter of conscience, fairness and of preventing discrimination," said Colin Manning, a spokesman for the Democratic governor. "It is in keeping with New Hampshire's proud tradition of preventing discrimination."

Three other states already offer civil unions for gay couples: New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont. Neighboring Massachusetts in 2004 became the only state to allow gay marriage.

Unlike other states, there was no active court challenge to push New Hampshire to act on the issue.

In fact, the success of civil unions was an about-face from two years earlier, when a study panel recommended New Hampshire giving no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay couples.

That panel had concluded that homosexuality was a choice, and it endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. State lawmakers have defeated proposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage two years in a row.

Thursday's legislation, passed 14-10 along party lines in the Senate - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed - will allow civil unions in New Hampshire starting Jan. 1.

Washington, Maine, California, New York and Washington D.C., recognize domestic partnerships. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer this week pledged to introduce gay marriage legislation in the next few weeks.

It's not marriage, but it's something. We're on a roll this week, aren't we?

I am personally concerned that people are using civil unions as a way to excuse themselves from mistreating gay people. That is, I think they are saying to themselves, "Now gay people are treated fairly, and we can put the issue to rest."

Although civil unions are better than nothing, I don't consider them a move toward equality, but a move toward prolonging inequality.

You've got a good point there.

Jaxian, I agree with you.

However, I'm of the mind that once all 50 states have either domestic partnerships or civil unions available - THEN will be the time to go after the separate but equal case.

If it means anything, we've had civil unions for two years now in CT - and we're still discussing marriage in the legislature. I agree that it makes it easier to for politicians to say 'we've done our bid for gay people AND saving marriage for straights' - but in the long run, we're better off with civil unions than nothing.

Tristan, I'm happy that you acknowledge that civil unions are better than nothing at all. I really think civil unions have a much better chance of succeeding in most states because there are still many people who simply have a problem with calling it marriage. Perhaps one day it will no longer be an issue in the minds of the general public.

How are they different??

Simple

A same sex couple = 2 men or 2 women

A mixed-sex couple = one man and one woman

Which coincidentally is what it takes to produce new life in the form of a baby

But you knew that so why did you ask?

We are all aware of the physical characteristics of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. But how is this justification for treating same-sex couples in an inferior fashion to opposite-sex couples?

It is a good sign that they are still discussing marriage in the CT legislature, however I am thinking they are not going to legalize same-sex marriage in CT.

Has there ever been any case where same-sex marriage was legalized after civil unions? As far as I am aware, legal recognition of same-sex marriage has never followed civil unions.

And so if you ask me whether this is a step closer to equality, I disagree. It is better treatment for gay people, but we'll be closer to equality when same-sex marriage is legalized.