The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to legalize same-sex marriage last Thursday. Gov. John Lynch, D-N.H., has publicly stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, but has not said whether he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk, according to his press secretary, Colin Manning. The legislation will now move to the state Senate.
The House bill "eliminates the exclusion of same-gender couples from marriage" and allows couples currently in a civil union to "obtain the legal status of marriage." The legislation exempts clergy members from performing same-sex marriages if their religion forbids them from doing so.
Thursday's vote initially failed 182 to 183, drawing angry shouts and celebratory cheers from the gallery and causing Speaker of the House Terie Norelli, D-Rockingham, to repeatedly call for order. The bill passed 186 to 179 after the House voted for reconsideration. Twenty-six Democrats voted against the bill, and 12 Republicans voted in favor, the Associated Press reported.
The successful reconsideration bodes well for the legislation's future, according to Rep. Barbara Richardson, D-Cheshire, one of the bill's co-sponsors.
"It was really wonderful that some people had the courage to change their minds," Richardson said. "I think people are learning that we can't discriminate and that we can't have second-class citizens."
Rep. James Splaine, D-Rockingham, the bill's lead sponsor and an openly gay legislator, said he had "enthusiastically sponsored" the civil union bill when it passed two years ago, but that civil unions are no longer sufficient.
"The time is right," Splaine said. "Even though we made great strides by passing [the civil unions law], it is separate and unequal. It's not marriage."
Republicans who opposed the bill said same-sex marriage is unnatural and dangerous to children. Rep. John Cebrowski, R-Bedford, who spoke on the House floor before the vote, said a union between homosexual individuals inherently cannot be the same thing as a union between heterosexuals.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman," Cebrowski told The Dartmouth. "You can't be something that you're not. There are countless examples. A PB&J is peanut butter and jelly -- it's not creamy peanut butter and chunky peanut butter."
Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states that allow same-sex marriage. The New Hampshire legislature recognized same-sex civil unions in 2007, seven years after Vermont became the first state to do so. The Vermont state Senate voted 26 to four to pass a similar same-sex marriage bill last Monday. The bill is now being heard by the Vermont state House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled to come before the House for a vote this week.
Gov. James Douglas, R-Vt., announced on Thursday that he would veto Vermont's bill if it reaches his desk. Although it is not his policy to announce whether he will veto a bill before it passes, Douglas said in the announcement, the intensity of the debate and the economic situation required his intervention.
"During these extraordinary times, the speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues -- and I cannot allow that to happen," Douglas said in a press release.
Douglas also mentioned his personal opposition to same-sex marriage.
"I believe our civil union law serves Vermont well, and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions," Douglas said in the announcement. "But like [Democratic President Barack Obama] and other leaders on both sides of the aisle, I believe that marriage should remain between a man and woman."
Approximately 300 people rallied in front of the Vermont statehouse on Friday to protest Douglas' announcement.
Although many Vermont residents were outraged by the announcement, advocates of the bill probably gained support as a result of the governor's announcement, said Beth Robinson '86, co-founder and chairwoman of the leading advocacy group Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.
"I think that there were some legislators who, watching the governor's statement and appreciating the magnitude of what he was doing and the wrongness of what he was doing, really fortified their resolve," Robinson said.
The announcement failed to push the legislature's focus toward the economic crisis and away from same-sex marriage, Susan Brison, a Dartmouth philosophy professor who teaches a number of women's and gender studies courses, said.
"[Douglas] just keeps saying this is a distraction, that the legislature in Vermont should be focused on the economy," Brison said. "But I think by threatening to veto this, he's making it more of a distraction, though I don't view it as one."
Stephen Cable, spokesman for the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, which opposes the bill, said he was "elated" about the announcement. Douglas' action placated worried opponents of the bill who believed Republican leaders were not doing enough to ensure the bill's failure, Cable said.
"It's about time that a Republican has said something substantive and taken a stand," Cable said. "There has been a lot of talk over the last three weeks that if a number of Republicans voted for this bill and if the governor allowed it to become law, there would be a new political party in Vermont," explaining that some Vermont Republicans have previously discussed creating a new party to promote conservative fiscal and social policies.
