CONCORD, N.H. -- A House Judiciary subcommittee is recommending the repeal of New Hampshire's gay marriage law and replacing it with civil unions. The amended bill still faces a vote by the full committee and House in January. The committee voted to recommend killing a second gay marriage repeal bill. The two proposed repeal bills would not affect gay marriages before repeal, but would stop new same-sex marriages.Interesting to know where this debate is going.
Comment Policy
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
NH panel recommends return to civil unions
NH panel recommends return to civil unions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From a proposed bill in New Hampshire to define marriage back to the old way....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0437.html
"I. Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, marriage has roots that are “older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).
II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of a man and a woman, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New�Hampshire has a compelling interest.
III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.
IV. A child has a natural human right to the love, care and support of his or her own mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes that ideal and encourages its achievement."
Well said, every point!
ReplyDeleteI've been kicking around the idea in my head for a while about the states having different relationship designations, and there being federal law in place to deal with differences. I haven't posted anything because I haven't been through all of the details, but the goals would be to: 1. Encourage happy marriages that last, at least long enough to raise the kids; 2. Reduce the number of divorces; 3. Reduce disputes and unjust results in divorces; 4. Provide certain protections and stabilities for non-marital relationships, especially if kids are in the home; 5. Help promote true monogamy even in nonmarital, but sexual or psuedosexual relationships.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very important that these other relationship designations (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) not devalue or discourage marriage.
I think it is destructive to have no-fault divorce and 50-50 community property as the default.
I'd like to see, if possible, MORE restrictions on getting a marriage license, and kind of a mandatory custom pre-nup that covers expectations for during the marriage, and what should happen should the marriage end. The couple could always state that they WANT "no-fault" and 50-50 community property.
As far as the additional restrictions, they would include that the parties to the marriage AND a licensed marriage counselor/officiant sign a document, under penalty of perjury and loss of license/authority to conduct weddings, that the couple has discussed with each other and the third party certain topis and come to agreements on those topics, including (and these are just what I can think of now) having children and how they will be raised, who will be working and how, the caretaking of the children, where they will be living, religious affiliation and practice (if any), finances, sex, recreation, involvement of in-laws, decision making and dispute resolution. Of course, plans can change. But discussing and coming to agreements on the major topics, with the aid of a counselor, could reduce unhappiness and divorce, including reducing divorce by discouraging them from marrying each other in the fist place.
Perhaps in the context of these marriages, adultery/alienation of affection, fraud, etc. should again be a matter of the law. This might mean more people opt for civil unions, but that's fine by me. I would also consider barring someone from getting a marriage license (again, the other options would be there) if they have been divorced a certain number of times already (perhaps it should be contingent on who filed for divorce, and if there was abuse/abandonment/addiction/adultery.... but I wouldn't want to encourage false accusations).
The bottom line here is the government does have an interest in distinguishing and promoting marriages that are stable and happy long enough to raise healthy new citizens to adulthood.