Opponents of gay marriage hope for repeal in N.H.
Chances could improve after November vote
CONCORD, N.H. - Three weeks after New Hampshire legalized gay marriage, opponents will ask a House committee today to repeal the law and let voters amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the two measures that many expect the House to reject when they are brought to the floor in the next few weeks.
Opponents know their chances of success are slim at this point, but they are looking to the November election, hoping that Republicans will regain control of the State House and succeed in repealing the law.
Right now, Democrats are firmly in charge and appear eager to dispose of gay marriage and other controversial measures early in the session to avoid lingering debate in an election year.
Gay marriage opponents know that and are focusing on a bigger prize: voter sympathy.
In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting that New Hampshire’s 400 House members and 24 senators are not representative of the people’s wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.
They plan to raise the issue at town meetings this spring in hope of passing nonbinding resolutions that will pressure lawmakers to present them with an amendment that defines marriage. They also hope their effort will help in November to elect candidates opposed to same-sex marriage.
State Representative David Bates, a Republican from Windham, is organizing the petition effort to put gay marriage before town voters. He said yesterday that petitions have been certified in 108 towns. He expects petitions to be completed by a Feb. 2 deadline in about 150 of New Hampshire’s more than 200 towns that hold meetings each spring.
Petitions must be signed by 25 registered voters in the town to be put on the agenda.
Kevin Smith - executive director of the Cornerstone Policy Research, a conservative group, agreed yesterday that there is not much chance the gay marriage law will be repealed this year. Though he supports repeal, Smith said he is focusing more on the proposed constitutional change and will urge lawmakers to let voters decide the issue.
“People really want an opportunity to have a say,’’ he said.
Janson Wu, staff lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and other gay marriage advocates contend that the size of New Hampshire’s Legislature makes it one of the most representative democratic bodies in the world.
“New Hampshire realizes it is just wrong to vote on people’s rights,’’ Wu said.
A ballot amendment would make New Hampshire a battlefield similar to other states where millions of dollars is spent by groups outside the state, Wu said.
New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage took effect Jan. 1. New Hampshire joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont in allowing the unions.
California briefly allowed gay marriage before a popular vote in 2008 banned the practice; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married. Last year, Maine lawmakers approved gay marriage, but voters overturned the law in a referendum.
Smith said he expects gay couples married in New Hampshire before a repeal or constitutional amendment would retain their status, much as couples in California retained theirs.