- The House solidly passed civil unions
- The Governor and some Senate leadership may goof on what finally emerges as law
The now predictable and still irrational this-defines-marriage-out-of-existence position came fromRep. Nancy Elliott this time. That is a sad little wheeze, but if you have one tune, that's all you hum. As she put it, "Marriage will lose its meaning, and the need for marriage will decrease as it becomes irrelevant."
By the bye, in two weeks, I've been married 31 years and same-sex marriage has not harmed mine, even though we live in Massachusetts.
The class-clown award on this should Rep. Maureen Mooney. She claimed that civil unions would discriminate against heterosexuals, including relatives and roomies who could not get the benefits. Nice try Mo, but no. I say pass marriage equality in New Hampshire, and then turn to domestic partnerships -- long overdue.
The two wild cards remaining seem to be different power plays by the Gov. John Lynch and Senator Bob Clegg. The latter has his ego tied up in a cohabitation-right bill. That looks like a loser after respectful consideration by his patient peers.
Lynch, on the other hand, seems to like being the pivot. He opposes SSM, but hasn't, if you pardon, come out on civil unions. If the House bill replicates in the Senate vote, it would take affect on January 1, 2008, if Lynch signs it.
He apparently wants all eyes on him. Until the Senate acts, he'll only say, "I will weigh in on it once I make up my mind on it. "Indecisive? Ignorant? Egotistic?
Tags: massmarrier, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, civil unions