(3/18/2009)




A House panel deadlocked yesterday on whether to support gay marriage, voting 10-10 on a bill that would make New Hampshire the third state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The split vote means that the bill will go to the whole House next week for a debate and vote without any recommendation from the House Judiciary Committee, which vetted the bill. The committee also deadlocked on another hot-button social issue yesterday, voting 10-10 on whether to forbid discrimination against transgender individuals. (See story, B1.)

Most Democrats on the panel voted in favor of gay marriage, but committee Chairman David Cote did not join them. Afterward, Cote, a Nashua Democrat, praised the same-sex civil union law that passed the committee on his watch in 2007 but said he thinks neither his constituents nor the state as a whole is "ready to take that final step."

Debate on the bill was often passionate. Democratic proponents called the bill simply an equal-rights measure for same-sex couples, who at present qualify for civil unions, not marriage, in New Hampshire. Republicans painted the bill as an attempt to rewrite the longstanding rules of a societal institution, a move that would open the door to further rewriting that, some warned, could include allowing incest, polygamy or bestiality.

"Why not brothers being part of marriage? Why not animals and men being joined together in marriage?" asked William O'Brien, a Mont Vernon Republican. He added: "Why would we discriminate against those who want to marry multiple members of the other sex?"

It's important, O'Brien said, to "draw lines."

On the other side, Gary Richardson said he sees marriage as a two-part process, separately licensed by the state and consecrated by a religious institution. The state should not discriminate in its licensing, he said, but neither should it force any clergy member to officiate over a ceremony.

"I am firmly convinced that the state has absolutely no role or right to become involved in the solemnization part of marriage," said Richardson, a Hopkinton Democrat who choked up while making the case for the bill. "I also believe that those of us who have religious beliefs should not in any way interfere with the civil side of the relationship."

O'Brien said that marriage is a sacred societal institution because it is where the next generation is fostered.

"It is given special status in our society because it is the relationship by which we wish our children to come into being and to be raised," O'Brien said. "Anything that tears it down, as this bill does, weakens our society and endangers our children."

The remark drew a weary reaction from Rep. Lucy Weber, who said that people have their own reasons for marriage that are not society's business.

"I am sick to death of having people tell me that my marriage to my husband made late in our lives is somehow less of a marriage because it had nothing to do with children," said Weber, a Walpole Democrat. "I cannot for the life of me see how according the same privilege accorded to my husband and me could in any way weaken my marriage or my family structure. So I see no reason to not vote for this and extend to all the citizens of the state the privilege that was accorded to me and my husband."

God created marriage, said Rep. Nancy Elliott, who cited several passages from the Bible. "In Genesis, our creator wrote down what marriage was: Between a man and a woman," said Elliott, a Merrimack Republican.

She added: "If we think that we are any different than past civilizations that have been destroyed over this then we deceive ourselves."

Rep. Frances Potter parried back that historical references are overblown, pointing to out-of-favor marital traditions from past millennia.