Civil Unions vs. Marriage

Civil unions represent progress to many activists within the movement for LGBT rights towards full marriage for same-sex couples. In fact, this position remains the national movement's de facto stance in its talking points, messages and other public statements. Yet this idea, which came into being after the Vermont Supreme Cout mandated lawmakers in the Green Mountain State to extend recognition to gay and lesbian couples in 1999, raises several problems as detailed in my feature in Gay.com. Nothing remains cut and dry. And this issue remains squarely among them.

With New Hampshire's civil unions law slated to take effect within weeks, the University of New Hampshire is struggling to address how the statute will impact the benefits it currently offers to the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. The state has announced it will no longer offer domestic partner benefits, but local activists contend they remain necessary because of health care, adoption and other concerns.

"Our position is that you should not end DP benefits because not everyone is going to enter into civil unions," New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Executive Director Mo Baxley told Gay.com in a recent interview from her office in Concord, New Hampshire. "Those are very legitimate issues."

UNH officials declined to comment, but they are among employers in New Hampshire and other states that have had to address these concerns as legislation extending legal protections and recognition to gay and lesbian couples takes effect.

Carol Buckheit, associate director of the Hartford, Conn.-based Love Makes a Family, said a number of same-sex couples called her organization with concerns about their DP benefits after the state's civil unions law took effect in October 2005. She did not identify specific cases in which employees lost their benefits. But Buckheit maintained that these concerns highlight the need for same-sex nuptials.

"What we're seeing is a patchwork of laws across the country: domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage in Massachusetts," she said. "States are struggling with how to deal with each other's patchwork of laws [and] in our view the solution is marriage."

Garden State Equality Executive Director Steven Goldstein echoed this conclusion. New Jersey's civil unions law, which took effect in February, did not automatically upgrade the domestic partnerships of same-sex couples who registered after former Gov. James E. McGreevy created a registry in 2004. Goldstein estimates nearly 1,800 gay and lesbian couples have taken advantage of the new law. But he quickly concluded it fails to provide the full range of protections that marriage affords.

"More and more couples are waiting for marriage because they see that New Jersey's civil union law is a total fiasco, failing to work to provide all the rights [and] benefits of marriage," Goldstein said.

Basic Rights Oregon executive director John Hummel took a more nuanced approach in response to the domestic partnership bill Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed into law in May. He conceded the statute only extends state benefits to same-sex couples that their heterosexual counterparts automatically receive through marriage. But Hummel told Gay.com he feels it benefits both businesses and gay and lesbian couples whose employers and municipalities may not have recognized their relationships.

"It has been a patchwork quilt of coverage with some companies and some cities and counties providing domestic partner benefits and others that didn't," he said. "It would be beneficial for businesses in the state because it would be one rule."

Hummel added BRO is planning to distribute literature and other information about the law once it takes effect on January 1.

"I know there is a lot of excitement among same-sex couples who have waited so long for their rights," he said. "We are preparing materials for people so they can understand their new rights under the law."

Oregon, California, Vermont and Hawai'i are among the handful of states which either legally recognize same-sex couples or extend legal protections and benefits through domestic partnerships and civil unions. Massachusetts remains the only state to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Freedom to Marry executive director Evan Wolfson affirmed the conclusion that marriage remains the only solution for same-sex couples.

"The creation of a separate state-level legal status, whether called civil union or partnership, unnecessarily complicates the lives of the families and the businesses and others they deal with," he told Gay.com in an e-mail. "The easiest and right solution is to end exclusion from marriage itself, rather than constructing new legal mechanisms that present equal treatment and inclusion."

Baxley agreed.

"As more of these stories become public, we're going to be back in a couple of years... and finish the job," she said.

New Hampshire Governor Signs Civil Union Bill

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch made history yesterday as his state became the first in the country to sign legislation to extend civil unions to same-sex couples without legal proceedings or the threat of judicial intervention. Civil unions remain unequal to full marriage for same-sex couples. This blogger, however, remains immensely proud of lawmakers in his home state who did the right thing for their gay and lesbian constituents.

Granite Staters take immense pride in their 'Live Free or Die' mentality which places immense value in limited government interference in their personal lives. Social conservatives will certainly use this mantra to challenge the law in the public square. The Union Leader will almost certainly run sensational editorials that mourn the collapse of so-called traditional marriage before the law takes effect on January 1, 2008. Gays and lesbians in New Hampshire, at least, now have a seat closer to the table than they did before Lynch signed the bill.

New Hampshire Civil Union Bill Clears Last Hurdle

The New Hampshire Senate yesterday passed a bill that would allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions less than a month after the House overwhelmingly endorsed the same legislation.

Governor John Lynch said last week he would sign the bill into law as "a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination." Presidential candidates who have already inundated the state in advance of the first primary early next year have also taken note. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards was among the candidates who issued statements in support of the bill.

"Gov. Lynch and the state of New Hampshire showed us that the idea of America -- fairness, justice and equal opportunity -- can become a reality when we have the courage to stand up for what is right," Edwards said. "New Hampshire's decision tor recognize civil unions and grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples is an important step in the fight for justice. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and by passing this law, New Hampshire's leaders chose fairness over discrimination."

Civil unions are not the same as marriage for same-sex couples but the bill certainly represents a significant step forward. The conservative Union Leader and the handful of other vocal groups, institutions and politicians who oppose the bill will certainly continue to express their opposition at the expense of many others in the state who support it. New Hampshire has a strong libertarian tradition based on limited government involvement in the private lives of its residents. This bill only continues that proud tradition in the Granite State.

New Hampshire's Exercise in True Conservatism

The New Hampshire House yesterday overwhelmingly passed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. Governor John Lynch has yet to take a position on the bill but its passage indicates the significant transition the state has undergone over the last two decades.

Native Granite Staters, such as myself, take immense pride in their self-determination and resentment of governmental interference in their personal lives. This 'Live Free or Die' philosophy trascends itself into the state's body politic with debates over taxes, education funding -- and now the possible expansion of legal rights to same-sex couples. This legislative mindset certainly has some drawbacks but remains the norm among the majority of New Hampshire lawmakers.

This philosophy often stokes New Hampshire's conservative reputation among outsiders who remain ignorant to the current reality within the state. Fiscal responsibility, the lack of broad-based sales and income taxes and limited state government remain the cornerstones of the "New Hampshire advantage" to which elected officials proudly point. Yet so-called conservative Christian values [i.e. traditional marriage] rarely take root in the broader New Hampshire consciousness. The Union Leader certainly adds folder to this illusion but the majority of lawmakers in Concord remain committed to their laissez-faire approach to governance.

The passage of this legislation certainly reflects a common sense approach to this issue. People vote for lawmakers whom they feel will legislate on their behalf. This bill, while it does not extend full equality to same-sex couples who live in the state, is certainly a significant step forward. Elected officials too often lack the political courage to take a stand in support of equal marriage rights for all of their constituents. But those who support the bill understand the necessity to limit government's involvement in their constituents' personal lives through discriminatory statutes. These lawmakers, through this bill, are true conservatives.