Same sex marriage is already prohibited under state law, as is the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The hearing drew more than 200 people……the vast majority called the controversial amendment at best unneeded………But according to supporters……a constitutional change is essential……They repeatedly called it the only way to ensure gay marriage isn't imposed on New Hampshire by what they termed unaccountable activist judges……Nashua Republican Mike Balboni is the amendment's lead sponsor.
"Our culture is under assault…as some conduct a social experiment that has served us so well……I and the vast majority of the people of nh do not want what happened in Massachusetts to happen here."
Supporters also argued, was that any deviation from the traditional union of one man and one woman would lead to moral relativism at its most pernicious.
Here's Merrimack representative Nancy Elliot.
"When you open up the definition to change to the then you can't deny any group….Whether it's a man and a family member or groups or even a man and an animal."
Critics of the plan……meanwhile, tended to stress present-day realities --that whether marriage is legal or not, gay and lesbian couples are already part of the state's social order…..and that prohibiting future legislatures from allowing gay marriage was presumptuous, and contrary to fundamental notions of equal rights…….Sheryl Gerserf of Tilton told lawmakers that's all she and her family are hoping for.
"I would like some day to tell my daughter yes guess what mommy and momma are about to be married legally……I'm not here to ask for special rights I'm here to ask for the same rights."
Other critics of the bill pointed out that the amendment as drafted goes far beyond what sponsors claim……..
"By it's own terms it outlaws any possibility of civil union -- even President Bush considers civil unions an appropriate option."
That's Marcus Hurn…..a Professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center…….Hurn is referring to language in the amendment that says "a marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid and recognized in this state." Hurn says putting as much in the Constitution could disrupt aspects of family law ranging from adoption to durable powers of attorney, reciprocal wills, and joint tenancies.
"Anyone who supports this thing has no legitimate right to ever again talk about judicial activism, this is an open ended ink blot……And there is no need…. The NH Supreme Court is not the Massachusetts Supreme Court they we're a little frisky a couple of years ago, but it's a far different court now. That's a bunch of tame cats."
For the proposed Constitutional change to get on the 2006 ballot, it would first need to clear both bodies of the legislature by a 3/5s majority……It would then need to be approved by two thirds of the public…….Most observers say that's far from likely, but activists on both sides of the matter say the legislature's vote will send an important symbolic message.
