In an effort to preserve New Hampshire's 2009 same-sex marriage legalization, many witnesses testified before the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee regarding House Bill 437 a proposed piece of legislation that would redefine marriage as the union between a man and a woman on Thursday, according to state Rep. Cynthia Chase, D-Keene.
Several gay individuals who testified at the hearing described the legal, financial and familial stability their newfound status as a married couple has afforded them. Others drew parallels between gay marriage and historical struggles for equality such as women's suffrage and integration.
It is misleading to frame the debate in terms of civil rights, state Rep. Jordan Ulery, R-Hudson, one of the 12 Republican cosponsors of the bill, said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
"Marriage between two people is not an issue of civil rights it's an issue about what is best for the state," he said.
The bill is an attempt to protect the public institution of marriage, not to discriminate against gay individuals, according to Hudon.
"The biological family has always been the cornerstone of the state, whether that's the national or local government," Hudson said. "The family and extended family has led to the development of civilization, and that's what marriage is designed to protect."
Ulery acknowledged that gay couples often face discrimination and burdensome legal difficulties, but said civil unions could act as a solution to many of these problems.
Jeffrey Jones of Lisbon, N.H., emphasized the importance of an official marriage license in his testimony by describing an encounter with a hotel clerk who initially refused to rent him and his husband a single room.
"If we had a civil union, we would have been walking across the street to another hotel," Jones said.
Chase said in an interview with The Dartmouth that she testified against the bill because the state should offer gay people the same opportunities that are afforded to heterosexual individuals.
"Marriage is a right, not a privilege," she said. "I don't believe it's proper for the state to discriminate against anyone."
Chase denied that extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples denigrated or threatened the institution of marriage.
"Today is my 38th anniversary, and [my husband and I have] had our ups and downs, but none of those ups and downs have been affected by anyone else's marriage," she said. "The phrase, To love and to cherish' that's where the strength of marriage comes from. It doesn't come from imposing standards on other people's marriages."
The bill's 12 cosponsors have supported the bill at the behest of their constituents, Ulery said.
"This is because of what happened last year when an unpopular piece of legislation was foisted on the people of New Hampshire," he said. "I know the letters and e-mails and phone calls I've gotten asking me to do something."
Ulery said that he did not expect the bill to receive bipartisan support. The ongoing debate over the bill is an unavoidable part of New Hampshire's legislative process, according to Ulery.
"In Vermont, the bill would never have made it this far party leadership would have killed it," he said. "Whether this bill passes or it doesn't, under our rules every member has an absolute right to be heard."
Voting on the bill may be delayed until next year so that the legislature can focus on fiscal issues such as tax cuts and job creation, Ulery said.
Chase said she hopes the legislature votes on the bill as soon as possible.
"It's absorbing huge amounts of energy and testimony, energy that could be spent on much better things," Chase said.
