Lynch signs gay unions into law
Governor says they're a matter of civil rights
By Margot Sanger-Katz
June 1, 2007
Describing it as a means of furthering "fairness, dignity and the strengthening of New Hampshire families," Gov. John Lynch signed a bill yesterday allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter civil unions.
Facing a packed room of supporters, Lynch said the law was part of the state's long commitment to civil rights and equality.
"Dating back to the abolitionist movement in New Hampshire, we have a long and proud history of opposing discrimination," he said. "Today, that tradition continues."
Legislators who attended the session snapped pictures and applauded loudly several times during the governor's comments. After Lynch signed the bill into law, many spectators cheered.
With his signature, Lynch made New Hampshire the fourth state to offer civil unions to same-sex couples, and the only one to do so without pressure from lawsuits. Under the bill, which will take effect Jan. 1, same-sex couples who join in civil unions will have all the "rights, responsibilities and obligations" of married couples.
Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who stood behind the governor during the ceremony, said he planned to enter a civil union with his longtime partner Mark Andrews next year. Though his own support for gay rights has caused conflicts in his church, Robinson said that the New Hampshire law would strengthen the state by promoting equality.
"It's really an affirmation of very conservative values," he said. "The church and society support marriage because it's about offering our children a stable environment to grow up in."
Sponsors and supporters of the bill said they were heartened by the governor's comments.
"This is the high point of all of the efforts that I and others have made to work toward equality for gays and lesbians," said Ed Butler, a Democrat from Hart's Location, who supported the bill.
Though Lynch's statement yesterday expressed clear support for the law, the governor did not immediately champion the bill after it passed the House in early April. For several weeks, Lynch said that he needed to speak to legislators before reaching a decision. Yesterday, he described his process of deliberation, saying that he had discussed the issue with hundreds of New Hampshire residents.
Dana Hilliard, a Somersworth Democrat, who was one of the bill's sponsors in the House, said that he was never concerned about the governor's final decision, but he understood it would take Lynch time to "process."
"For this governor, who is very popular, coming out and signing this publicly sends a very strong message," Hilliard said.
Until yesterday, it was unclear whether the governor would sign the bill in public. He received the bill from legislators last night, according to his spokesman Colin Manning, and decided to sign it right away.
"The governor only has five days" to sign the bill, Manning said. "We decided that because it was a session day, it was a good opportunity for all the supporters to be there."
But critics of the bill said that the governor should have given more notice before the ceremony. His staff announced the event less than two hours before it was held.
"The governor did not want any public attention on this if he could help it," said Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the state Republican Party. "That's just not political courage."
The civil unions bill passed the House by a 2-to-1 margin. In the Senate, legislators voted for it 14-10, along party lines.
It was a departure from the Legislature's discussion of same-sex unions in recent years, which had never before included legal recognition. Three years ago, legislators passed a bill preventing the state from recognizing out-of-state gay unions. In 2005, a legislative commission formed to investigate gay marriage recommended a constitutional amendment to ban it, though that proposal had little support.
The bill's supporters credited the new Democratic majority with enacting the change but also said that public acceptance of civil unions has matured as residents have had time to see how similar measures have worked in neighboring states.
In New England, Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions, Maine offers domestic partnerships for gay couples, and Massachusetts is the only state in the country to allow gay marriage.
"I think society has come a long way," said Portsmouth Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the bill. "We've come a long way, and now New Hampshire has stepped up to the plate."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary from Tony Perkins
Likening New Hampshire's new civil union law to freeing the slaves, Gov. John Lynch (D) celebrated as his state became the fourth to offer alternatives to traditional marriage. Unlike the other three states, New Hampshire managed to usher in these special rights without a court order or threat of legal action. "Dating back to the abolitionist movement, we . . . have a long and proud history of taking the lead in opposing discrimination. Today that tradition continues," Lynch said at the bill signing ceremony. Though the argument is a popular one, African-Americans continue to take exception to the idea that the fight for same-sex marriage is comparable to the civil rights movement. Homosexuals have experienced disapproval, but they have not endured centuries of violence, abuse, segregation, and slavery. Unlike ethnicity, homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African-American cannot choose to participate in having black skin; they are born with it. Lynch's suggestion that homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both genders be present. A new report from Massachusetts also calls into question how important "marriage" is to homosexuals. Only three years after same-sex "marriage" became legal in the Bay State, the number of same-sex "marriages" has dramatically declined. The state Department of Public Health notes that 6,121 same-sex couples married in the seven months following the court ruling. In 2006, 1,427 couples married. As of April 26 of this year, only 87 homosexual couples have wed. This makes it clear that homosexuals don't want to marry; they want the official governmental and social affirmation of homosexual relationships that comes with being able to marry.
