New Hampshire would not acknowledge gay marriages under a bill that passed the state Senate yesterday, 16-7.
Senate Bill 427 declares that New Hampshire shall not give legal effect to laws or judicial proceedings of other states that recognize as marriage or the legal equivalent of marriage relationships between members of the same sex.
The bill also states that in New Hampshire, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Sen. Clifton Below, D-Lebanon, described the bill as "codifying discrimination and prejudice in our state."
But Sen. Andre Martel, R-Manchester, said "neither the courts nor the legislatures of another state should dictate the definition of marriage in New Hampshire."
Opponents said the bill, which has Gov. Craig Benson's support, goes far beyond existing laws and is prejudicial, discriminatory, anti-family and anti-community.
Sen. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry, said gays can give partners legal rights through creation of powers-of-attorney, trusts and health-care proxies.
More than 400 attended a hearing on the bill last month.
Sen. Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, said she has struggled with the bill, but felt it would be wrong to pass it.
"Love, honor and cherish are not exclusive to relationships among men and women. New Hampshire already has a law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, and that will still be there. . . ," she said.
She said the bill is about voiding relationships.
"It says that their relationships don't matter. . . . This bill does nothing at all to make any marriage stronger in this state. What this bill does is relegate many . . . to second-class citizenship."
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, a sponsor, said he was not bringing the bill forward for political reasons.
"It's from what I hear out there," he said.
Sen. Joseph Foster, D-Nashua, said the easy thing would be to vote yes for the bill. But he said he could not.
"Laws that honor property rights would not be honored as I see it. So this bill I don't think is necessary because the law is clear," he said, "and it goes beyond the situation further than I am willing to go."
The measure will next go to the House for a vote.
