Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House
By Karen Dandurant
December 29, 2008 6:00 AM
PORTSMOUTH — When legislators meet in 2009, there will be several bills to consider that deal with civil unions and gay marriage.
State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill asking that civil unions, which are currently recognized by the state, be changed to allow marriage. State Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, is co-sponsoring the bill.
"The bill would essentially provide for full marriage equality," Splaine said. "I submitted the bill because I think it's important that we keep this dialogue going."
Splaine said the bill will be presented on Jan. 7 along with the other bills introduced for the session. He said then it will be scheduled for a public hearing or sent to a committee.
Splaine said that although civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire, gay marriage is not. He said a bill introduced by state Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states as civil unions here.
This is generally good news, IMHO, as "civil unions" have served only as a foot in the door with regard to the legalization of gay marriage. Rep. Splaine is trying to break down that barrier, and I applaud that.
What gets me is the quote from Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.
(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.
"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."
Emphasis is mine.
Every once in a while, the homophobes let slip a tiny little bit of truth that somehow amazingly avoids detection. Everybody get that? Marriage isn't about love or companionship, it's about procreating. Making babies. Gay people don't do that, so the concept of gay marriage is therefore abhorrent.
Of course, it's an easy step to extend that logic. If marriage is about procreating, shouldn't heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (or are somehow unable to do so) therefore be required to divorce?
Rep. Hess? Hello?
Is this thing on?