By DANIEL BARRICK
Monitor staff






The Rev. Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, speaks in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage yesterday in Concord.






One year after New Hampshire first began allowing same-sex couples to enter civil unions, gay-rights supporters opened the debate to establish full marriage rights for homosexuals.

The debate, which continued well past sunset last night, strayed far beyond marriage to dabble in history, morality, fishermen unions and several invocations of the state motto, "Live Free or Die."

More than 100 people packed a legislative committee room in Concord yesterday, most of them urging lawmakers to update the new civil union law to grant gay couples a claim to the word "marriage."

New Hampshire's civil union law grants gay couples the same "rights, obligations and responsibilities" as married heterosexual couples. The only difference between civil unions and marriage is linguistic. But both supporters and opponents of gay marriage say that difference is crucial.

"The word 'marriage' is important," said Rep. Ed Butler, a Democrat from Hart's Location and a prominent supporter of gay rights. "That is a significant cultural recognition. If you are honest with yourselves, you'll acknowledge that civil unions, though wonderful in their own right, are not marriage."

Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that the semantic difference between "civil union" and "marriage" amounted to a protective barrier around a bedrock of civilization. The Rev. Robert Haynes, a pastor at New Life Community Church in Manchester, said homosexuals should be satisfied with the recognition they received with the civil union law.

"If they've got all the other benefits, why are we even discussing this?" Haynes asked lawmakers. "We've got a budget that's not balanced, and we're discussing this?"

The Rev. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire's Episcopal Church and the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, urged members of the House Judiciary Committee to legalize gay marriage. He said the definition of marriage had evolved through history - including changes to allow marriage between people of different races. Extending full marriage rights to gays and lesbians, Robinson said, would be "the next logical revision in that evolution."

The gay marriage bill would redefine marriage to be the "legally recognized union of two people." It would recognize gay marriages performed in other states or countries. And it specifies that clergy members are not required to perform marriages for same-sex couples if their faith does not sanction such unions. Couples who entered civil unions since they were legalized in New Hampshire last year could have their union designated as a marriage without paying an additional marriage license fee.

Massachusetts, Connecticut and California are the only states to have granted full marriage rights to same-sex couples. California subsequently revoked the right by referendum. Several countries, including Canada, allow same-sex couples to marry.

Testimony leaned overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage. Dozens of supporters, organized by the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, wore bright-green stickers reading "Support Marriage." Mo Baxley, executive director of the coalition, said opponents to gay marriage were trying to force their faith on others.

"I grow weary of cafeteria Christians telling me what parts of their religion I need to follow when they don't even follow parts of the Bible themselves," Baxley said.

Several witnesses urged lawmakers to consider how legalizing gay marriage would affect children. Shannon McGinley, a representative of Cornerstone Policy Research, a conservative public policy group, said allowing same-sex marriage would erode the traditional family.

"One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe in the importance of a mother and a father for every child. But one cannot believe in both," McGinley said.

Other witnesses used more obscure arguments. Michael Geanoulis made an analogy to the Portsmouth Fisherman's Co-op, a group he helped establish that decided to exclude sailboats from its membership. The choice wasn't discriminatory, Geanoulis said, because it was for the good of the group as a whole. Likewise, he said, forbidding homosexuals from marrying would benefit the bulk of society. "We have to think of marriage as the highest and best choice for children, just like the Portsmouth Fisherman Co-op was the highest and best for fishermen," Geanoulis said.


Comments
HOMOSEXUALS
By Anonymous on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 12:04

The vast majority of society is against gay marriage. Every time it is voted on, homosexual marriage is defeated. Civil Unions are available. Robinson with his message of perversion should shut up. Saying it is a civil rights issue is absurd. Homosexual marriage will never be accepted and where it is legal it is overwhelmingly looked at with disfavor. Religious viewpoints condemn homosexual marriage, but most importantly common sense screams out that it is contrary to the laws of nature. More importantly, why are legislators wasting time with this phony issue. Rep. Splaine should be voted out of office.