The New Hampshire House of Representatives is currently considering a bill that would replace existing same-sex marriage laws with civil unions, according to State Rep. David Bates, R-Rockingham, the bill's sponsor. House Bill 437 which the House will vote on in January 2012 proposes a return to the definition of marriage as the "union between a man and a woman," which was New Hampshire law before the state voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in April 2009, Bates said.
"It's a reinstitution of civil unions, which carry no distinction in terms of rights and privileges from a marriage," Bates said. "The previous law was applicable only to homosexuals, and this in contrast will be a contractual agreement that provides reciprocal benefits and obligations to parties that are part of the agreement. It's open to anybody who is 18 years of age and competent to enter into a contract."
If passed, the bill will not invalidate existing gay marriages that occurred in the state since April 2009, Bates said.
The process for proposing the legislation started almost a year ago, but was delayed due to the Republican leadership's focus on "budgetary and economic issues," Bates said. The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the legislation last week, and the bill will now be subject to a full House vote during the House's next session in early January, he said.
If passed by the House, the bill will be considered by the State Senate and then the governor's office. Gov. John Lynch, D-N.H., who signed the marriage equality act into law in 2009, will not seek re-election in 2012, so the deciding vote on the bill is currently undetermined.
Although the language and content of the new bill is almost identical to that of previous civil union legislation, the new bill includes a new clause that allows for "religious protection for conscientious objectors," Bates said.
"The bill includes a religious liberty section that allows people to not be compelled to offer services or benefits to people in civil unions if they have a religious objection about doing so," he said.
Bates had considered an amendment to the New Hampshire state constitution to redefine marriage, but said he suspended the proposal in light of the attention the bill is receiving.
"I made the decision not to present the amendment because the bill is well on its way to passing," he said. "It seemed that it was most appropriate that if we are going to change the definition back, we should do it by the same process as it was changed before, in 2009."
The bill could have wide-reaching implications for the state if passed, women and gender studies professor Michael Bronski said.
"This is a question of simple equality under the law," Bronski said in an interview with The Dartmouth. "If there's a marriage bill for same-sex couples, it's outrageous and unfair not to extend it to everyone."
One of the most immediate concerns about replacing marriage with civil unions is in the "considerable" economic, social and cultural advantages that accompany marriage, Bronski said, citing health care benefits in particular.
"I'm interested in extending the benefits that come with marriage to as wide a group as possible," he said. "By installing marriage as the only way to get benefits for couples, ethically you run into a problem where you end up denying people access to health care."
Previous legislation that allowed both married couples and couples in a domestic partnership to receive the same benefits were "eminently sensible," Bronski said.
The proposed legislation mandates "pretty plainly" that those who enter into civil unions will be entitled to the same rights and obligations as those in a marriage, and there is "no distinction" between the two, Bates said. Complaints about equal access are more likely to come against federal legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act, he said. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage is prohibited at the federal level and states are allowed to bar gay and lesbian couples from receiving federal benefits.
The potential changes to marriage law in New Hampshire is an important consideration for potential College employees, according to Pam Misener, advisor to LGBT students.
"When Dartmouth talks about wanting to recruit and retain the best, most diverse and most talented workforce that we can, we have to pay attention to the environment we're inviting people to move into and consider living in," Misener said. "People pay attention to what rights they or their neighbors will or will not have, so as an LGBT profession inviting potential employees into what could potentially be a quagmire of legal intricacies is certainly something to be mindful of."
Misener said the legislation also concerns students, both while they are undergraduates and when they leave the College.
"I want every student on this campus to have the same access to civil liberties and civil rights for as long as they are living and working in New Hampshire," she said. "I would love for New Hampshire to be a viable option for students when they finish their undergraduate or graduate work here, but unless we maintain what we currently have or build on it, we won't be as attractive of an option as we could be."
The bill presents a potential "legal quagmire" in terms of determining rights for individuals, couples and their families, Misener said.
"For people who live in a state of social power that comes with the privilege of being able to be in a social marriage, there is no sense of what it would mean to have to navigate the terms of a civil union," she said. "Its hard to think about how do you even begin to discuss who has access to what given your legal status and your relationship with your spouse or child."
If the bill were to pass, the validity of marriages in New Hampshire that came before the change could be called into question, according to Bronski.
"You have the same situation out in California where the state of certainty on some marriages is constantly in question," Bronski said. "I think that politically and legally it's a nightmare, and it's a nightmare easily avoided by leaving things the way they are."
Bates has supported the stricter definition of marriage with the assertion that a union between a man and woman is the only way to naturally produce children, according to The Boston Globe. This argument is "under-informed at best and ill-informed at worst," Misener said.
"We've seen and heard this argument time and time again, and it doesn't just hurt LGBT-identified people," Misener said. "If that's the measure we're going to use, anyone who's beyond their childbearing years shouldn't be allowed to get married, and neither should anyone who's infertile."
