The House, Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would move to recommit this matter back to the Judiciary Committee and I would like to speak to my motion. Speaker: Rep. Rowe moves that HB 437 be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. He is recognized to speak to his motion.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Thank you, Madam Speaker: This is a most important bill for our state and this legislature. It will make a tremendous difference to our society. It's important for all people, but the bill itself is extremely technical and it has not had as much time in our committee evaluating and studying it and that is why I would like to have it recommitted. Consider if you would, just a few points. We are here today on a committee amendment. When I wrote my presentation, I thought we had four floor amendments. Someone said we have seven now. Even at four we wouldn't get through this until Noon or 1:00 p.m. - one bill. We are falling further and further behind. Second, there are a lot of errors in the committee amendment and possibly in the floor amendments and with all of these floor amendments coming forth, we're going to be expected to listen to the speaker speaking, read the floor amendment for the first time, evaluate it, ponder it, compare with others and to come forth and have a responsible vote. That is simply not going to be possible. This is what the committee is for. Now, I would ask you to turn to page 555 in your amendment in your House Calendar and look at the House amendment. Speaker: Rep. Rowe. You were recognized to speak to your motion to recommit.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Yes, thank you. Speaker: I would ask that you keep your remarks to the motion to recommit.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)I am speaking to the amendment that's before us and that's the one that's going to be recommitted and I'm referring to it as a basis for recommittal. Speaker: Okay. I would just note that there is no amendment before us.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)If the House committee amendment is not before us, I would be happy to sit down and wait until that's brought forward and then I will stand up and ask to recommit. Madam Speaker, in due respect, I will accept your decision on that issue. Speaker: There is no amendment before us at the moment. You were recognized for the motion to recommit, to recommit the bill in its entirety.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Then I will wait until the committee amendment is brought forth so I can refer to a few points in that committee amendment that strongly suggest why it should be recommitted. Thank you. Speaker: Rep. Rowe, did you withdraw your motion?

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)I guess I have to withdraw my motion until after the motion is made for the committee amendment and when that is introduced, I will stand up and I will ask to be recognized for a higher priority motion. Yes, my request has been delayed. Speaker: Rep. Rowe withdraws his motion to recommit. The question before the House is on committee amendment (0972h) printed in House Record 25 on pages 781 and 782. The Chair recognizes Rep. Rowe for a motion.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Thank you, Madam Speaker. It almost seems as though I've been here before. I would move recommittal. Speaker: Rep. Rowe moves recommittal of HB 437 and is recognized to speak to his motion.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)This legislature is made up of intelligent people with a great ability to retain facts. I respect that and I won't repeat my introduction remarks, but I ask you to transfer them to this presentation. I've indicated one reason why we should recommit because we'll be sitting here until 1:00, 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. on all of these amendments and guess what? At the end of all these, we're probably going to get another motion to recommit. Well let me talk about a few errors there are in the House amendment and there very likely is going to be an awful lot of problems, inconsistencies and ambiguities in these four, five, six or seven floor amendments so I would ask you once again to turn to page 555 in your House Calendar which has all of the amendments. Speaker: The House will be in order. The committee amendment is on pages 781 and 782.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)I stand corrected, Madam Speaker, but I ask you to refer to that and in the House Bill, I ask you to turn to sections A3 and A4. These are the sections that indicate the relationship where a civil union is not allowed. These relationships are similar to the classes of people who can't marry and they were put into law for genetic reasons. Issue born of the brother and a sister, etc. have a high priority of it being defective, but when it's civil unions, I hardly think there can be issue born of one man who has a civil union with another man. We have discriminated in many respects against the homosexual community and I feel that we definitely should do something in that area, but this bill would prohibit two elderly brothers wanting to live their life out together or two same sex cousins wanting to live their life together so they get the benefit of health insurance. That is simply wrong. That is discrimination and there is not a strong basis for that. That's one of the issues. The other is a public policy issue. If you turn down to section A8 it says, "Civil unions or other legal domestic relationships." What is another legal domestic relationship? Is it defined? It is not defined and yet for any non-resident from Massachusetts or Africa or China that has a civil union by that country's standard and in a legal domestic relationship by that country's laws must be accepted here under this bill. That is simply wrong. We should set policy as to what is prohibited as we do in heterosexuals. Speaker: Would the member please suspend for just a moment. I want to explain to you and to the House why I am going to.....the motion that you have made is to recommit. The issues that you are addressing are issues about a particular amendment. When you are speaking to recommittal, you need to address the House as to why you think this bill needs to go back to the committee and leave the debate on the problems with the particular amendment to when we're having the debate about the amendment. You may continue.

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Thank you for your clarification, but this old man just plods along in his own way and yes, I am getting to that point. I've indicated some of the rational as to why this should go back to a committee, why we should retain it, why we should once again evaluate all options so we can come forth next January and operate and pass an excellent bill. I feel it's foolhardy for us to ponder at this date so many amendments, trying to recognize them, understand them, compare them and vote on them. This is too important a task to do in a matter of hours. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)Yes. Speaker: The member yields, Rep. Peter Allen, you may inquire.

Rep. Peter Allen (D - Ches 6)Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much, Representative, for taking my question.

Rep. Peter Allen (D - Ches 6)We all pledge, "With liberty and justice for all." What is the problem?

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)In what context? Speaker: Will the member yield to a follow up?

Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)I feel that we are discriminating against, for example, two brothers, two same sex cousins who want to have a civil union for the benefits of it, to live together the rest of their life. There's many, you might say, well it's not the same thing. I say it is because you may be thinking in terms of a stranger vs. relationship. That may or may not be a sexual one. There's others things such as brotherly love. I think it's reasonable to allow related people of the same sex to have the same benefits as non related people because there is not going to be a genetic issue and that is why this prohibitive section was put in in the first place possibly centuries ago. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Vaillancourt.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. This is not new. This House has dealt with this now since the opening of the session. We've dealt with many permutations of this for the last couple of years. What is going to be a long day has already become a longer day by this motion to recommit. I suggest this is nothing more than an attempt to kill a bill which has come to us and it's time to do something about it. What we do about it is up to the wisdom of this House. I suggest we could do one of many things, but let's not lose focus. This bill is not about brothers and sisters being allowed to fit into civil unions. If you want to do that, you can introduce another bill next January. If you want to do that I guess you can do a floor amendment and confuse this issue even more. This bill and others and the amendments are about civil unions for gays and lesbians, about giving equal rights to a group that is the last in our society to get them. To recommit this bill now would be an insult to them, an insult to the Judiciary Committee, which has worked on this and frankly I think the previous speaker was one of the people that worked on this. It may take three or four hours to do this. It may take all day to do this, but eventually we're going to give it the time it deserves and I suggest the time is now. Please do not recommit this. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit. The Chair recognizes the member from Merrimack, Rep. Mooney.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker and members of this Honorable House. I rise in support of a motion to recommit. This bill was exec'd in an amendment format at the very end of the last long day to exec bills before the deadline. The bill we took up last week to recognize out of state marriages was one of these bills as well. There are currently four in depth floor amendments to make this bill better policy. At least two specific concepts for members of the committee to greatly improve this bill were not properly considered due to committee time constraints beyond our control. The floor amendments proposed are really too tedious to consider as floor amendments therefore I feel a motion to recommit is my only recourse. Those in the bi-partisan minority on the committee believe that we must properly deliberate and amend this serious bill in order to make it fair and equal for all consenting adults and I ask you to please vote green when the question is called on a motion to recommit and I thank you for your considerate attention. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. Lasky.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning fellow colleagues. There is absolutely no need to recommit HB 437. The Judiciary Committee has done its work. I'd like to say as usual, contentiously and competently. We have had long hearings on all the bills devoted to this subject matter. Everyone was heard who wanted to be and we had sufficient inclusive sub-committee meetings on the bill. There was an entire afternoon spent discussing it and yes the vote was taken at the end of that afternoon, but after we had spent hours discussing it. There is no new information to look into and no reason to recommit and I believe that part of our process is floor amendments from time to time. There is no reason that everyone in this House cannot look at those amendments. They will be spoken to and they can digest and grasp what is needed to make a good decision. Also the concepts that were alluded to will be addressed in another bill we are proposing from the committee that will be taken on later today. So I ask you, please vote red, press red and vote no to recommittal. Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Will members please take their seats? Speaker: Rep. Gionet requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. The Chair recognizes Rep. Buxton for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Donald Buxton (R - Rock 10)Madam Speaker, my Honorable colleagues. If you believe as I believe that I participated in the executive session of HB 437 at the end of a long day, right before the calendar deadline on March 22, and if you further believe that I am convinced more than ever that HB 437 is seriously flawed and can be greatly improved, and if you know that recommitting this bill is the right thing to do to improve the quality of life for thousands of New Hampshire citizens, please join me in pressing the green button. Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Gary Richardson for a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lasky for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we look alike. Madam Speaker, if I know that the Judiciary Committee did its work carefully and completely, and if I further know that there is absolutely nothing to gain by recommitting this bill, would I now vote no and press the red button? Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to recommit HB 437. This is a division vote. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Speaker: The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 134 having voted in the affirmative, 217 in the negative, the motion fails. Speaker: The question before the House is committee amendment (0972h). The Chair recognizes the member from Merrimack, Rep. Mooney.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker, thank you members of the House. I rise opposed to the committee amendment found on page 781 of this week's House Calendar. Emotions aside, this amendment's content is flawed. It does not specify whether a person has to be married or not to enter into a civil union. This is a critical component of this bill since technically it leaves a wide open gap for someone to be married at the same time as entered into a civil union. It allows for out of state civil unions or domestic relationships to be recognized in New Hampshire and this puts us into the same position where we were last week recognizing out of state marriage laws created by courts or otherwise into New Hampshire as our law. But most importantly, this amendment is not fair or equal. There are floor amendments that you'll hear after this vote to clarify each technical point that I just named for you just now. I ask that you vote down this flawed amendment and consider one of the several substitute floor amendments that will be offered today. And again, I would request that you vote red on the committee amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker and members of the House. Speaker: The question before the House is on the committee amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Bedford, Rep. Mark Clark.

Rep. Mark Clark (R - Hills 18)Thank you, Madam Speaker and Honorable members of this House. I have a running joke with my wife that since we were married in Hawaii, it doesn't count in New Hampshire. Hawaii was one of the first states to consider civil unions, but in fact they voted it down. Then they established a marriage amendment that only allows for marriage between one man and one woman. I stand here today in defense of marriage as between one man and one woman. I equate civil unions to marriage and in my opinion it is absurd to think civil unions are any different from marriage. I know some of you surround yourselves with those who argue for civil unions, but in reality most of our constituents do not want homosexual marriage. In fact, you would not even let them vote on it. The fact is this is not an issue of civil rights as you've been told over and over again. This is more about the idea that homosexual couples are no different than heterosexual couples. Hopefully we agree there is a difference between a man and a woman. We are fundamentally different. I believe in equal rights for both sexes, however, men and women are different. I don't think I have to explain that. When I asked my wife if she wants to become a man, she says "Absolutely not." I believe civil unions strike at the very core of our society, redefining its social structure and thus becoming a wrong approach to solving the issues that homosexual couples have. I'm not for taking away civil rights based on someone's sexual preference. What people do in their bedrooms is none of my business. What people do in their bedrooms should not make them married. I'm for solving issues that those who live in domestic partnerships have. They should have all financial rights as that of married couples do. Domestic partnerships should be based on what people do, not be based on what people do in their bedrooms. Civil unions should not be only allowed for those who do something in their bedrooms differently than heterosexuals. This is discrimination. Let me give you an example. If my wife died, I would like to enter into a relationship with my best friend. He could stay at home. He already has a cleaning company and is a pretty good cook. He could also help me raise my kids. We should have the rights like any other couple. However, we will not have sex with each other. Excluding us would be discrimination and clearly this court is not in the business of discriminating against anyone based on what they do or don't do in their bedrooms. Please support the domestic partnership concept and vote no on civil unions. A bill that would surely be discriminatory the way it is written. Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on committee amendment (0927h). The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. Lasky.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning again. Fellow members of the House, I stand before you and I agree with my esteemed colleague on Judiciary, the representative from Merrimack, and I ask you to vote against the committee report as amended. In the time since that amendment...... Speaker: Will the member....I just want to be clear that the question before the House is on the committee amendment, not Ought to Pass with Amendment.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)No. Did I.....I am sorry, Madam Speaker, if I said that, I am in error. I am asking you to vote against the committee amendment. In the time since that amendment was proposed and placed in the calendar, issues were raised that members of this House felt they could address and present an even better bill to the House - one that would be clearer and unambiguous and would meet these concerns. Shortly, we will be able to do just that. So at this point, I ask you to vote no on the committee amendment. Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on committee amendment (0972h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say Aye. All those opposed Nay. The Nay's have it and the committee amendment fails. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vaillancourt for the purpose of a floor amendment.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Madam Speaker. In difference to the Judiciary Committee which will be offering a new amendment, I withdraw my amendment so we can hear their new amendment first. It could well be that their amendment does what my amendment, albeit more wordy, would also do. Words are not bad things, so I withdraw that amendment at this time. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The Chair recognizes Rep. Lasky for the purpose of introducing a floor amendment.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Rep. Lasky moves floor amendment (1156h). It's in your seat pockets and she's recognized to speak to her floor amendment.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker and I will give each of you a minute to get that out and follow along with me. The former teacher in me wants to say, does everyone have the right place? Okay, thank you. Honored members of the House, I proudly stand before you today in support of HB 437 as amended by amendment (1156h). A bill that will establish civil unions in our state and give same gender couples and their families the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as married couples. Over the past six years, the Judiciary Committee has listened to hundreds of stories from New Hampshire residents about the difficulties they face every day as same gender couples without the legal rights of marriage. Always heartfelt and compelling, they have told us of not being able to be with their partners in the hospital, of being denied healthcare benefits. We've heard stories of not being able to share in end of life decisions and everyday difficulties of picking up a sick child at school. These people are our neighbors, our sisters, brothers, children, teachers, politicians and they are fighting for our country. They contribute to our communities and enrich the fabric of our daily lives with their individuality and they should no longer be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. New Hampshire has a long and proud history of independence and support for all its citizens. We can demonstrate that now by passing amendment (1156h) and HB 437 as amended. We have the opportunity to prove this legislature's commitment to minority rights by guaranteeing fair and just treatment to same gender couples. The amendment is simple, straightforward, gets the job done. The purpose of the new chapter, civil unions RSA 457A is to recognize civil unions, to delineate the rights, obligations and responsibilities of parties entering a civil union, to establish a process by which one is established and to provide a process for its dissolution, if needed. This amendment addressed concerns expressed by this House, as I stated previously, during the past couple of weeks. No one under the age of 18 can enter a civil union and there is now in the bill prohibitions against an already married person from entering a civil union nor can one who's already in a civil union, enter into another one. Other than that, the bill is as you have been presented and have seen and as was previously in the Calendar. No longer will same gender couples have to go through expensive complicated contracts for each of the approximately 399 state rights afforded to married couples. The time is right. These families have waited long enough for recognition, legitimacy and legal relief. So I ask you, please do the right thing. What you know in your heart is right. Help our daughters, sons, friends and neighbors live their lives, the way I believe we all want to live, with the people we love in peace and dignity. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the Lasky floor amendment (1156h). I would remind all of the speakers to please confine your remarks to the amendment. The debate is not on Ought to Pass with Amendment, just on the amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Merrimack, Rep. Mooney.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker and members of this Honorable House. I rise opposed to floor amendment (1156h). Although some technicalities have been addressed, one glaring flaw is that this civil union contract is only allowed for same gender couples. A further floor amendment will be offered to open this contract since it is not a marriage. It is a domestic partnership contractual agreement. Another interesting point to notice is in section A8 on page 2 of the floor amendment which allows marriages and civil unions created out of state of New Hampshire into New Hampshire. Even more so, in this section, it converts Massachusetts marriages, Massachusetts same gender marriages, into a New Hampshire civil union. I don't understand that provision and if a civil union is not a marriage I don't see how that works. Colleagues, we on the Judiciary Committee have not seen or examined or had a hearing on this amendment or its ramifications and I would encourage you all to vote red against this floor amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker and members for your attention. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)I will. Speaker: The member yields. Rep. Carson, you may inquire.

Rep. CarsonThank you, Madam Speaker and thank you Representative for taking my question. I would just like some clarification on something. We've had discussion in this House especially on this bill concerning equality and discrimination. The one thing that I am really surprised at is the fact that in this bill there is no provision for heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions. Can you speak about that a little please?

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)That is correct. This floor amendment is only applicable to same gender couples. However, I do know there are at least 2 floor amendments to follow this amendment that is inclusive of any two unmarried adults. Thank you. Speaker: Will the member yield to another question?

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the Lasky floor amendment (1156h). The Chair recognizes the member from Hart's Location, Rep. Butler.

Rep. Edward Butler (D - Carr 7)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Fellow colleagues, I rise in support of the amendment to create civil unions for same gender couples. Many of you have told me and others of our colleagues that you will support this bill today which creates a legal bond for committed gay and lesbian couples in which we will be able to access all the rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage in the state of New Hampshire. To those supporters, and for the thousands of gay and lesbian citizens for whom this legislation will mean so much, I say thank you. Thank you for understanding that gay and lesbians deserve yet one more step on the road to full equality. Speaker: Will the member please suspend for a moment? The question before the House is on the committee amendment so you should address your remarks to the amendment. At some point we'll get to the bill itself with any attending amendments.

Rep. Edward Butler (D - Carr 7)My understanding is that the amendment speaks to civil unions directly and that's my intent. Writing my testimony has been somewhat difficult. It's not like I don't know the subject. I'm gay. I've been in a committed relationship with my partner Les for 29 years. I've been active in advocating for gay and lesbian equality for much of my adult life. I was on the commission created by this body to study same sex marriage and its legal equivalents or so it was titled. Many of you received email messages over the past several days in support of this bill. I hope you read them. They were from gay and lesbian couples and singles, from parents and grandparents, friends and pastors. Allow them to help me give this testimony. One woman wrote, "I have a personal stake in this bill, as I am with a partner of ten years who is very sick. We have attorney in fact and power of attorney papers. My partner was in the ICU for ten days between December and January and again last week. She is completely bed ridden. When in the ICU, where she almost died, I was asked by a nurse if she had any family to be with her. I told the nurse that after ten years together and three children, I believed that I was her family." And this was after they had already given their power of attorney papers to the hospital. Another woman wrote, "We have been together for 24 years in a committed relationship. As we grow older together we not only want but need to be recognized by our state as a committed couple, especially in situations of poor health were we would not have access to each other and to the decisions made about each other." A gentleman from Portsmouth wrote, "No citizen who abides by the law deserves to remain in a second class status." This bill seems to me to support the sort of committed relationships and strong families that make a more civilized and stable society that benefits all of us. Several ministers sent messages. One priest said, "As a priest of the church, I have seen first hand the trauma that can ensue for those who have no legal rights upon the death of a partner or for children who are not able to avail themselves to protections of the law." We can make a difference in the lives of many people by offering them rights and protections. From someone who works in HHS, "My partner of five years had to go without medical coverage for quite a while simply because, unlike my married coworkers, I was unable to add her to my insurance." And one last and longer quote. "I write to you as a teacher. I have taught for several years as an openly gay educator. I have seen the healing that comes with honesty and integrity. Children thrive in an atmosphere of safety, honesty and inclusion. Children are very aware of the debate going on over gay marriage. They are awaiting the result like a verdict on the human value rating of their gay and lesbian family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, classmates and for some it is a statement about their very selves. Please give them the support of freedom. I write to you as a Christian, although there are some sects of Christianity that would be oppressive to gay and lesbian families. There are several denominations that believe fervently in our equality to heterosexual families before both God and man. We are assured in the New Hampshire state constitution that no one sect would have dominance over another. Those churches in favor of gay marriage are not trying to denominate other denominations by forcing them to accept that which they do not want to do. However, anti gay church groups are indeed attempting to force legislation which would set their own beliefs as the officially sanctioned beliefs of the state. Our constitution stands to keep us safe from that threat. I write to you as a gay man engaged to be married in August of 2008. Please make our special day even more special. Our priest just told me he would marry us in a second. I cannot express in words how humbled and grateful we would be." Isn't it amazing that this gentleman is using the language of the mainstream of society and even without the legal supports, he is engaged to be married - God, that younger generation. And then there was that one email in which one of our constituents said he did not favor this bill because it runs counter to his moral belief system. And the good Representative from Jaffrey quickly sent out his own message saying, "Finally, someone has made a good argument." After dozens and dozens of emails urging us to vote in favor of civil unions, many with personal stories or well thought out messages, finally someone said what at least one of our august body wanted to hear. I guess that's why it's been difficult to come up with compelling testimony. Many people have sent powerful requests for that one big step up the ladder toward equality and yet those of you who don't want to believe that we should be your equals, are not likely to listen to any of our entreaties. You can justify your position by saying, "You are already my equal. You can marry someone of the opposite sex just as I can." How many times have I heard that canard? Or that traditional marriage must be protected, that our society is losing its moral compass and the support of gays and lesbians and our loving relationships will somehow further society's social decline. Or that society has expressed interest in supporting the model between one man and one woman because it supports and encourages procreation upon which the ability of society depends and traditional marriage is one of the basic building blocks of civilization as we know it and should not be changed any further. And because of these arguments and these fears, attempt after attempt have been made and are being made today to prevent access for gays and lesbians to those rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage in this bill through a ceremony called civil unions. As so many people did in their messages to you over the past few days, let me try to assay your fears. Let me try to assail your misconceptions. Let me try to appeal to your basic humanity. Gays and lesbians have worked over the past many decades to come out of the closet and into the light. That process has been difficult because of the deep fears and prejudices of many. Obviously issues of sexuality are very powerful. As you know, many people have lost their livelihoods because of being gay or lesbian. We have been rejected by family and kicked out of housing or have been marginalized in other ways. Many gays and lesbians have been beaten because of who they are. Many have lost their lives. And yet we continue to work to become more a part of society because we know that we are simply the same as you, our straight counterparts and want and deserve the same rights and responsibilities in society. We want you to know that you have nothing to fear from our lifestyle any more than we have anything to fear from yours. Our loving relationships are as precious and as powerful as yours. Most of us settle into committed relationships just as you do and as we become more an accepted part of society, our households are mirroring family norms. Many couples are having or adopting children or bringing their kids from a previous relationship. We will resist attempts to minimize our loving relationships by comparing them to any two adults who desire to have some legal benefits. As couples, we are the same as you. Our loving relationships endure the same challenges, the same exhilaration, the same communication problems, and the same negotiations over who's balancing the checkbook and who's washing the dishes tonight. We deserve the same legal and societal recognition of our relationships. I wish I was more eloquent, more clever, somehow could construct the images that help those of you who do not support this bill. Understand why you should reconsider your reasoning, but I can only say that we are requesting to have this ceremony called civil unions, not because we want to undermine the institution of marriage, but rather because we respect it. Ours is a vibrant statement that reinforces the tradition of marriage and looks forward to the securities that civil unions will provide for our families. I'm asking you to support your gay and lesbian constituents by supporting this bill. Civil unions do not give us equality, but it does bring us closer. It sanctions our love and commitment in a way that has not yet been done in this state. You will continue to learn in a way that has not yet been seen that we are not a threat to the safety or civility of your belief systems or the stability of society or the family structure. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker and I will not take questions. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the Lasky floor amendment (1156h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say Aye. I'm sorry, a division was requested. Will members please take their seats? Speaker: Who requested a roll call? Rep. Vaillancourt has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. Speaker: This is a division vote. The question before the House is on the Lasky floor amendment (1156h). If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mooney for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if you believe as I believe that several of the flaws in the original committee amendment have been corrected in this floor amendment, however, Madam Speaker, if you believe that two glaring discrepancies are left in this floor amendment, that being that it is not fair and equal and that it converts Massachusetts same gender marriages into New Hampshire civil unions, and if you further know that this amendment was not properly considered by a policy committee, then would you join me in voting red? Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on Lasky floor amendment (1156h). If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Gary Richardson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you agree as I do that this bill will grant to gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire all of the rights, obligations and responsibilities of marriage, and if you believe as I do that the reason that people want to be able to enter into civil unions is to support and enhance stable and familial relationships, and if you believe as I do that civil unions not only do not threaten traditional marriage but in fact further the same goals that we strive for in traditional marriage, would you join me in pressing the green button? Speaker: The question before the House is on Lasky floor amendment. If you're in favor, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 223 having voted in the affirmative, 137 in the negative, Lasky floor amendment (1156h) is adopted. Rep. DiFruscia moves floor amendment (1158h). That's also located in your seat pocket. He is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that floor amendment (1158h) be adopted. A week ago we talked about the constitutional amendment, you may remember, and I was very interested to hear that one of the new State Representatives, a young one, talked about discrimination and how she saw it first hand. I must share with you that I feel that that's occurred to me too. The last Speaker, Madam Speaker could never pronounce my name, but somehow he didn't have that situation with the other members. What I am really concerned about is the family unit and when you look at the family unit what do you want? The Judiciary Committee with it's amendment today or at least in the Judiciary Committee proposing it, if you think about it, seem that that amendment itself is in and of itself a situation that expands marriage and expands family. How does that happen? How many of you are divorced? Do you like paying alimony? That's simple. Under the floor amendment from the committee, you are paying alimony. Did you bargain for that? Did you really bargain for that? What my amendment does is it takes it out of the category of family, so called family law, so that you're dealing with two adult individuals who have a common purpose. I was asked when I was coming up here today whether or not the amendment is printed could have been any smaller. Quite frankly, I don't think so. But I would like you to come with me for a few seconds to just hear what it says. It expands what a family is and it says that the purpose, of course, in the first section is to form a contract. It also says qualified two people over 18 consistent with the present law. It also says if you jump down to line 22 and 23, it talks about rights, privileges and responsibility conferred by state and federal law including law of partnership. I'm not so sure I'm happy with the word partnership. But I must share with you the fact that we are now not in the family court. This is the only bill before you, by the way, that has bi-partisan support. The next speaker is a member of the Democratic Party. I don't view this at all to be simply a case dealing with marriage. It's not. Traditionally we all know what a marriage is and traditionally we know too that there is no place for discrimination. So if you want to be fair, if this family contract is dissolved, it's in equity court. Now, what does that mean? You're not subjecting yourself to the family court. Equity court which is now able to and has been able to do for the last couple of hundred years, divides various property interests between various individuals such as partitions to partition. They deal with contribution. They deal with who has contributed what in building up that asset. If you look also within our own statute you deal with liens, Medicare liens. You'll see in Medicare liens that anyone who is a member of that household, including a spouse, would not be evicted. I sit now as the Chairman of that subcommittee. So, what this amendment does, the amendment quite frankly simply makes it a contract issue and makes it fair. The word is fair. I can understand both sides of the issue. I feel they have some merit, but I also feel the biggest pitfall here. The biggest one is by trying to make this something of more than what it is not. If you keep it in equity, it's a contract. If you make it a contract, and you put the terms of a contract that the laws of the state of New Hampshire shall govern no matter where you go. We now know, as so often happens, that when you make a contract, you can make a contract and say the laws of a particular state will be applied. Is it unique? Yes. Is it different? Yes. Does it handle and take care of people of the same sex or not of the same sex? Yes, as long as you're unmarried. Is it fair? Yes. And if you don't have a will, does it take care of the other party? Yes. Because if you look at it, under line 25 dealing with inheritance, it means that if there's no will, the other party to the contract now would end up picking the remaining share, except in one spot. And that's the rights of children, children of either party. So what are we doing now? What we're trying to do is we're trying to say clear and simple, it's a contract. Now whatever either party wants to do, whatever church they want to go to, they can do it. The same thing applies. I'm suggesting to all of us that if you really want to be fair, if you really don't want to discriminate, if you really and truly as in the bill it says that the purpose is to provide mutual financial support and emotional comfort to each other, is there anything else you want? When you get into a situation like this, isn't that what it's all about? I know it's a little bit different. Further on you're going to see a bill that talks about a study concerning this issue. Nobody wants to talk about a study. But let me suggest to you. If we're going to amend and change the family unit, the best way to do it is dispassionately, fairly, adopting amendment (1158h). Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Yes. Speaker: The member yields, Rep. Dumaine, you may inquire.

Rep. Dudley Dumaine (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. My voice is a little rough today because I don't know how long it is going to last. I'm just curious, if it's going to have basically the same elements as a marriage, what's to stop the Supreme Court from coming in and just saying "Hey, might as well be a marriage," and it is?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Thank you for the question. It's simple why the Supreme Court wouldn't. With the current amendment, the Supreme Court can, because you're clearly saying with the current amendment that all of the statutes dealing with marriage dissolvement fall within a civil union. In my amendment it does not, it says the equity court that does not deal specifically with the section dealing with dissolving of a marriage, the creation of a marriage, or in fact divorce, alimony and all the other good things. Thank you because I think the present amendment that's before you that's been submitted. Now the biggest nightmare we ever have is the court coming in and trying to figure out what we meant today. And I can possibly see somebody coming forward and challenging and saying, "Well, why are you calling it civil unions, it's really a marriage." Now do you want that to happen in the court system? It's your choice. Speaker: Will the member yield to a further question?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Sure. Speaker: The member yields. Rep. Dumaine, you may inquire.

Rep. Dudley Dumaine (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you know, Representative, I don't trust the Supreme Court as far as I can throw a school bus. And, what's to stop them from even taking your amendment and doing it anyway?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Very specific within my amendment, it says clearly that the laws of contract from the state of New Hampshire shall apply and it also says clearly under line 28 by filing suit in equity in the superior court. To me that's clear, so clear that even a Supreme Court judge can understand it. Speaker: Will the member yield to another question?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Yes. Speaker: The member yields. Rep. Itse, you may inquire. Rep. Itse: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to the Representative from Windham for taking my question. Representative, does your amendment allow the execution of civil rights and distribution of property absolutely blind to sexuality?

Rep. Anthony DiFruscia (R - Rock 4)Thank you for the question. I want everybody to know that I did not set up these questions. Okay? The answer is yes, of course it does. Sexuality has nothing to do with this amendment dealing with the family contract. I hope that you will consider my amendment seriously because I think it's a step forward and I hope that you listen to the other two speakers and Madam Speaker I'm requesting a division. The next speaker is going to be a Democrat who certainly will have a different point of view. Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Sanbornton, Rep. Morrison.

Rep. Gail Morrison (D - Belk 2)Thank you, Madam Speaker, esteemed members of this House. You have heard people say in response to the plea for the right of marriage, "You can have the same thing by drawing up a series of contracts." The usual response is that no one can carry a suitcase of contracts around with them to show proof of that relationship. One document could do the whole thing. The civil union's bill, as amended a few moments ago, is a very simple document and it does what is needed at this moment. This amendment that is being discussed is even simpler. It does nothing to address the needs of gay families. It does not extend the family court system and its dissolution process that we've been working on for so many years. It does not extend it to gay families. It leaves that to the equity courts. That is not right. This is a sham. It's a sham with a fancy title, the title being, family relationship act. Is that so? It allows parties to make an agreement and that's something we can do now. It does not extend rights and that's what we really and truly need, the extension of rights. You heard the Representative from Hart's Location say that very same thing. I'll say that to you again, too. We need those rights. This last weekend, my partner and I of 25 years did something that we had been hoping to do on Valentines' Day. We exchanged rings and I'm glad to take your congratulations. We exchanged rings with the knowledge that this was something that was going to have special meaning because in a very short time we would be able to enter a civil union. I spoke with someone in the women's room just before we came in and she said, "You know, this may the most important bill we pass this year." And so, I urge you to defeat this amendment and to support the bill as amended by the Lasky amendment. Thank you so much. Speaker: The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. David Smith.

Rep. David Smith (R - Hills 22)Thank you very much Madam Speaker. My friends, this is a most important issue as you all know. I spoke in this well last year on a constitutional amendment for a marriage between a man and a woman. And I alluded to the fact that there was an alternative. The reciprocal benefits agreements that are working in the state of Hawaii are working very, very well. The DiFruscia amendment pretty much reflects what those reciprocal benefits are. So we have a system here that is in fact tested and it is working well in society. This is about equal rights and the amendment, I feel, does address that factor. It was mentioned there were 390 rights that people who are in homosexual relationships do not have the benefit of as if they were married. This is to grant them those rights. I've heard an awful lot about equality. I'd like to remind everyone here that we are not equal. And before you take a quick breath, our constitution in the first paragraph says most clearly that all men are equally created to be free and independent and that means that we have equal opportunities and by having the equal opportunities you should have access to those equal rights. The problem with marriage is not in the institution itself. The problem with marriage is manmade law that we've attached over the years. The tax benefits, the benefits of visiting someone in the hospital, inheritance. The list goes on and on and on. And people who have the strong committed relationships are being denied those. Let's fix man's law. That's what this amendment does. And, to my friend in Hart's Location, I say you ought to be commended for having had such a long and steady relationship with someone who you obviously dearly love and are committed to. And what this legislature does here or does not do here is not going to change that one bit. And you should be very proud of that relationship, just as I am very proud of my relationship with my wife. There is another thing that we should consider also. We've all received a lot of communications. We've received a lot of emails on this issue. We have denied the people of New Hampshire the right to vote on what they feel should be a constitutional amendment. I think that we should also remember when we cast our votes today to remember what our oath is and that is to what we should be doing for our constituents. Do you feel that your constituents truly want this or would they prefer to have people being able to come before the law freely and independent on equal terms as they should be able to? I thank you all for listening to me. I thank you very much Madam Speaker. Speaker: The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Gary Richardson.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Madam Speaker. First I would like to give my compliments to my friend and fellow Judiciary Committee member, the Honorable Representative from Windham for making a really excellent argument on a very poor and weak bill. There is a fundamental flaw in the amendment. And that is that although it talks about familial relationship, nowhere in the bill does it define, nor in the amendment, does it define what a familial relationship would be nor does it give it any status. Basically all the bill does is to say that two people can enter into a contract to do something. Well, I have news for you. Two people can enter into a contract to do something as long as it's not illegal right now. We don't need a bill labeled as a familial relationship bill to give us that. With respect to the substance of the bill, it really doesn't say much, but what it does address - the one area where there is some specificity, is related to the area of inheritance. And it says the remaining party, if one of the parties dies, shall be considered the sole heir except as to the children of the parties, but nowhere in the bill does it define what interest the children of the parties would have in inheritance and it is an illustration of the fundamental problem of not adopting the process that we have in this state to deal with relationships between people who are in a marriage or hopefully will be in a civil union. We have 200 years of statutes and development of law with respect to the relationship between married people. The Lasky amendment we have just adopted incorporates that language into the relationship of civil union. I beg to disagree seriously with the Representative from Windham that the judges will not be able to interpret this. They interpret issues of law in divorce every day and by adopting that language in civil unions, they will know how to interpret those relationships. The other last comment I would like to make is with respect to the last speaker from Nashua and he raised the issue of what our constituents want. I think what our constituents want, ladies and gentlemen, is that people be treated fairly. I think they want to let people do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes and I think they want to let them enter into relationships such as civil unions and respect their rights as well as the rights of those of us who are heterosexual. I don't think it's a disallowance of what our constituents want to adopt the policy that people be treated fairly regardless of their race, creed or sexual preference. Thank you. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. A division has been requested. Will members please take their seats? The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment (1158h). This is a division vote. If you're in favor of that amendment, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Welch for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Welch (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I believe this amendment is fair and equal to all New Hampshire citizens who wish to contract with each other for mutual financial and emotional support, would I now vote yes and press the green button? Speaker: The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lasky for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker if you know as I know that the proposals in this amendment deal with problems that have not been clearly identified and will do nothing to rectify the inequities among same gender couples, and if you further know that this amendment is just not ready to be passed, then would you now vote no and press the red button? Speaker: The question before the House is on the DiFruscia floor amendment. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and 253 in the negative, the DiFruscia floor amendment fails. Rep. Mooney is recognized for a motion.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker and members of this Honorable court. I rise in support of floor amendment (1155h) which should have been found in your seat pockets first thing this morning. Speaker: Rep. Mooney moves the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment (1155h). That is in your seat pocket and she is recognized to speak to her amendment.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Article 2 of our state constitution etches life, liberty, property and happiness as natural rights. There is no greater happiness than human companionship. Our state constitution also emphasizes equality of all in part first Article 1. This floor amendment blends these two key elements of life in New Hampshire to benefit all family relationships in whatever form they come in. The floor amendment opens the civil union concept to any two unmarried people who so wish to enter such a contract. It takes the concept behind the committee amendment and the floor amendment that was adopted earlier, but fairly and equally broadens it by replacing the phrase "same gender couples" with the phrase "any two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older." It takes the state out of the business of love and instead deals with the fair and equal distribution of the economic benefits of marriage. The family unit has evolved over time to include all sorts of combinations. Why shut the door after same gender couples? I've been told repeatedly that a civil union is not a marriage. If this is the case, then why can't a civil union, a domestic contract between parties, be opened to any two unmarried people who so choose to enter one. Upon adoption of this floor amendment, we in New Hampshire will establish ourselves as a leader in caring for all combinations of family relationships. The bill as it is now as amended is a separate but equal clause in our law, an exclusive contract for only a certain sect of New Hampshire society. Lastly, I want to draw your attention and direct your attention to the blurb on 755 of your calendar. The last line states that the bill will move us closer to equality. It will move us closer to equality and I say let's get to equality today. Thank you, Madam Speaker and I would appreciate a vote of green on my floor amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Etna, Rep. Pierce.

Rep. David Pierce (D - Graf 9)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Amendment (1155h) is a fatally flawed bill to recognize civil unions in New Hampshire. First of all, amendment (1155h) is really a solution searching for a problem. My emails and I'm sure everyone else's emails have been flooded with pleas from gay and lesbian couples across the state pleading for recognition of their relationships. I've not received one email, one letter, one phone call from any two brothers seeking the same relationship. Have you? If not, again this is a solution searching for a problem. Should we relegate our gay and lesbian citizens to fear status in the law and keep them there because of this misguided bill? If someone wants a bill to have the state elevate these relationships to civil union status, they can offer one, but let's deal with the problem in front of us today. Indeed the sponsors of this amendment and all the other floor amendments we've heard favor equality for same sex couples. So let's deal with that, let's vote on it and then let's move on. Second, you'll see in amendment (1155h) there is no incest prohibition as the last amendment inserts. Now I'm not for, and most of you probably agree with me, having any kind of state or implicit or tacit state approval of incest relationships. We shouldn't be passing any bills that recognize relationships, familial relationships like this that do not have these prohibitions in it. Again, if someone wants to offer a bill that condones state approval of incest relationships, they can offer one. I'm not going to vote for one, but they can offer it. Third, amendment (1155h) has no exclusivity requirement. Although it does speak in terms of that no married person shall enter into a civil union, it does not go further and say that no one already in a civil union shall not enter into another civil union. And again, if someone wants to offer a bill that puts out that we should have these types of polygamous civil unions, they can offer it, we can debate it but that's not what we're here to do today. Again, I won't vote for it, but as another Representative, I believe a Representative from the Judiciary Committee said, "This amendment has no process for applying for civil unions." The Lasky amendment has direct references to RSA 5-c 41-61 which is the law as it has evolved in New Hampshire over 100 years about how these licenses will be applied for. Amendment (1155h) does not do that. There is no reason to and no application for it so we don't know how it would work. Amendment (1155h) does not say. Finally, amendment (1155h) provides no mechanism for recognition of out of state civil unions like the Lasky amendment does. So even those, it seems, we're mostly all in agreement that civil unions should be the law of the state, and I even note that President Bush has come out in favor of civil unions for same sex couples. Amendment (1155h) would not recognize any civil union that has been solemnized in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey or California here in New Hampshire. That's another fatal flaw and another reason why I think we should vote against this amendment. For these reasons, I ask you to vote down amendment (1155h) and Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. David Pierce (D - Graf 9)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment (1155h). The Chair recognizes the member from Concord,

Rep. James MacKay (D - Merr 11)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'll be brief because I have to be. I am losing my voice. Just so there is no confusion, I support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and there is nothing in my presentation that is intended to denigrate that part of it. This bill is based on the basic principle of keep it simple and I'll leave out the other aspect that it does some things that make it possible to get where so many people want to get to. We worked with this yesterday and after quite a considerable amount of consultation, felt that at least this is another avenue to get to civil unions for those that deserve it. There are some that feel that adding in this for everybody 18 and over for any and unmarried is overly broad, but it does what people want it to do. I felt it might be a way that some people that are rather conflicted about this could find this a way to move ahead with this subject. I hope you can support this. As I say, I support civil unions and my final vote will be in support of that. I hope along the way you can do this and I hope you vote green. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Will the members please take their seats? The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment (1155h). If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mooney for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker if you know as I know that this floor amendment opens up a civil union contract to all unmarried couples making it fair and achieving equality today, and if you know, as I certainly do and everyone here does that incest referred to earlier is an illegal form of intimacy and my amendment does not refer to intimacy of any kind, and if you further know that this floor amendment will make New Hampshire a leader in the country in family law to properly care for all family combinations in whatever form they come in, then would you join me now in pressing the green button? Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment (1155h). This is a division vote. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lasky for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker if you know as I know that this amendment will again do nothing to rectify the problems and the injustices that same gender couples have among us, and if you know as I know that we are ignoring intimacy with this bill, and if you further know as I know that this amendment's content can be looked at in a different way in another bill that will come before us, then would you please vote no and press red button? Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment (1155h). If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, 249 in the negative, the Mooney/MacKay floor amendment fails. The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Merrimack, Rep. Nancy Elliott.

Rep. Nancy Elliott (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Please bear with me. I've had to revise my speech several times through this debate. This bill is unconstitutional because it's discriminates and does not allow other groups access to this new class. Proponents of HB.... Speaker: Will the member please suspend? The House will please be in order. The member deserves to be heard. You may continue.

Rep. Nancy Elliott (R - Hills 19)Thank you. As I said before, this bill is unconstitutional because it discriminates and does not allow other groups access to this new class. Proponents of HB 437 say that same sex pairs love and are committed to each other and that should be a basis for marriage. Lot's of people love and are committed to each other that would be excluded in this bill. For example, three people that love and are committed to each other, two couples that love and are committed to each other and all forms of groups: a mother and daughter, two sisters or a father and son who may be interested due to finances. There is an issue as to whether the concept of civil unions is constitutional. We will have two institutions that are exactly the same except for the title. A rose by any other name is still a rose. We have heard discussion of separate but equal. Would this be the case? California has ruled this unconstitutional to have separate but equal. Traditional marriage is not discriminatory. It allows every woman to marry a man and every man to marry a woman. Marriage is for procreation. While all married couples do not have children, that does not change the fact that procreation requires a man and a woman. Nature bears witness to the legitimacy of one man and one woman. This bill is unconstitutional in the fact that it recognizes out of state unions. It does not recognize their marriages. Couples married in Mass., same sex couples, will most certainly sue and have their marriages recognized. The court will see this as reasonable due to the changes in our state. We are recognizing their relationship, but are we really? We are saying that you were a marriage and now you are just a union. Do you really think that our courts are going to accept that? The first same sex marriage union that is recognized from Mass. will spark a planned lawsuit to demand this equal protection of the law for New Hampshire based same sex couples. This state will be forced by the court to recognize same sex marriage just like the situation in Massachusetts. Face it. Is it fair that people who move here from another state have more rights than natives? No. Therefore we must all recognize that gay marriage is the end result of passing this bill. Know that if you vote for this bill that you are in fact voting for full gay marriage. What changes will gay marriage make in our state? Marriage will lose its meaning. It will no longer be a standard of morality. There will be a new morality. The need for marriage will decrease as it becomes irrelevant. It will affect our schools and children. As in Mass., our children will be forced to study the methods of homosexuality, something many parents feel their children would be okay never knowing. In Mass., the court's ruled that parents do not have the right to have their children excused from classes even if they oppose this teaching. And in Mass. this starts at the kindergarten level. Faith based adoption agencies will be forced by this statute to place children in gay homes in opposition to their teachings or face closure as is happening in Massachusetts. This bill now has a conflict in it due to all the amending processes. It says that no one under 18 can enter into a civil union. However, it also references the marriage laws which allow girls of 13 and boys of 14 to enter in, so I think we have a conflict already. Know that if you vote for this bill you are in fact voting for full gay marriage. If that is your intent to impose gay marriage on the citizens of this state, then you want to vote yes. But if you are looking at this civil union's bill as a compromise and not really marriage or even that by voting for civil unions you are protecting marriage, you are deceiving yourself. Be honest with yourself and your constituents. If you do not want gay marriage, and this is a gay marriage bill, you must vote no and press the red button. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Nancy Elliott (R - Hills 19)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Vaillancourt.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of Ought to Pass with Amendment. As I alluded to earlier, I had an amendment which basically would have done the same thing. I think it was more elaborate and would have been better, but I don't think we should be any more confused than we already are here today. There was a time in my life, just a couple of years ago, when I thought when this bill came forward, I was going to have to get up here and plead with my colleagues to pass something that would at last bring the final segment of our society into equality with everyone else in the human race. I'm not going to have to do that. I can read the votes. Junie Blaisdell or Lyndon Johnson, some great man, I always forget which one, said, "When you've got the votes, sit down and vote." But I'm not as wise as either Junie Blaisdell or Lyndon Johnson or whoever said that and I would like to clear up some misconceptions about this bill. The previous speaker said this was gay marriage. It is not gay marriage. In fact, later this morning, later this afternoon we will consider HB 791 which in its original form, was and is about gay marriage. It has been amended to a study committee. The reason I mention this is because this bill as it stands today is a compromise, similar to the bill I introduced, a compromise. And what I see now is something rather miraculous happening. A lot of members of the gay and lesbian community showed up in this room to push for full fledged marriage - 791, the members of the Judiciary Committee and the members of this House. My friend from the North Country who served on the same sex marriage commission with me voted against this compromise on the same sex marriage commission. He has now accepted this compromise. What I see today are members of the gay community, the lesbian community saying, "You know we've got 99 percent of what we want. We're willing to accept that. We're willing to compromise." So I think what we need to do now is to ask the other side to say okay we're willing to compromise as well. It would be nice to see this not pass by a two to one margin, but by unanimity. In the Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most important document every penned, Thomas Jefferson wrote those immortal words. I hope you'll allow me to read them. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The New Hampshire House today, in adopting this measure, will bring our society, albeit somewhat belatedly, into compliance with Jeffersonian ideals. All men and women are created equal whether they are black or white, gay or straight. Whether they are tall or short, color blind or can see colors, left handed or right handed. In the Jeffersonian spirit, the New Hampshire constitution, adopted June 2, 1784, reaffirmed in Part I, Article II all men, all men have certain natural, essential and inherent rights among which are the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring and possessing and protecting property and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. I ask you, what could a more basic happiness be than that attained by two individuals falling so much in love that they wish to share their lives together in body, mind and soul. To deny two people that basic right, that right to sanctify that love before God, if they choose, and man is to deny an expression of that basic right of happiness. In 1974, in Article 2 of the New Hampshire constitution, we included the rather radical words, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, sex or natural origin. And in Part 10 of the constitution it was kind of a right of revolution, if you remember, that so many constitutional scholars like to bring up Part 10, it says, "Government being instituted for the common benefit," similar to common benefit in Vermont law, "common benefit protection and security of the whole community and not for the private emolument of any man, family or class of man." And then it goes on to enumerate the right of revolution when government becomes dedicated to only one segment of society. By passing this bill today, although we are not granting full marriage rights to homosexuals, gays and lesbians, we are saying, "Hey, you have the same rights as other people and we are acknowledging that as other states have done." On the other hand this bill does not go as far as Massachusetts. This bill is not something handed down on high from a court as was the case in Massachusetts or Vermont. I am proud to say that this bill comes out of the Legislature. This bill which I hope will pass by tremendous margin, comes out of the peoples' will. And you know, Speaker: The House will be in order.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)No, they should be allowed to boo. I believe that shows the situation we are in, in society today. Speaker: The House will be in order. I would ask the guests in the gallery to please remain in their seats or you will be removed from the gallery.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)All men are created equal. They are endowed with their Creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's time that we recognize that gays and lesbians have a right to pursue that happiness. Madam Speaker, one thing this bill does not do is force any religion to honor the wishes of a gay or lesbian. If you will look at page 2, lines 3 and 4 of the amendment, nothing in this chapter shall be constructed to require a minister or clergyman or clergywoman to solemnize and perform a civil union. So this bill is not forcing any lifestyle on anybody else. Forest Gump, yes Forest Gump had that famous line, "Life is like a box of chocolates." Remember that? Well, to those people who are afraid of this bill, to those people who say that if we allow homosexuals, gays and lesbians this kind of right, we're going to be taking something away from the straight community, I say to you life may be like a box of chocolates, but love is not like a box of chocolates. If I take a chocolate and eat it out of a box, I am denying you that chocolate. If a gay or lesbian choose to marry or get united with another gay or lesbian they are denying nobody anything. They are not denying you a chocolate. Love is infinite. There is enough love for everybody to go around. You know opinion polls and again I don't think we should act because of opinion polls and I have to tell you the truth, I never lie so I am going to tell you I had a caller last night, night before who said, "I will never vote for you if you pass this." I explained that I am going to pass it if I can. Opinion polls show that while the majority of New Hampshire residents do not yet support gay marriage, they do support civil unions. So be not afraid. We are not taking a chocolate away from the heterosexual community. We're not forcing anything on the heterosexual community. What we are doing is bringing society a little bit forward. In 1967, the Supreme Court in the Loving vs. Virginia decision stated that blacks and whites could indeed be allowed to solemnize their love for each other and marry. As you may know, public opinion was very much against that decision, but today no one among us would deny blacks and whites to solemnize their love for each other. And I think in 15 to 20 years society will feel the same way about denying gays and lesbians to solemnize their love in this form. I will take the question if you want to ask me if this is indeed a racial matter. What it does is say society advances incrementally. After this bill passed the committee, a gay activist was quoted in the Concord Monitor as saying, "This was one of the happiest days of my life." And you know I thought it would be a happy day for everybody who honors and appreciates equality. I thought it would be this uplifting experience, but it's an evolutionary process. We didn't arrive here overnight. You know when I realized that this was the kind of bill that would pass here today? And I hope it will. A couple of weeks ago on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the godfather of conservatism, and I say that with all pride. I like the man a great deal. George Will was quoted as saying, "For most young people, being gay is like being left handed or being color blind." George Will saying that. In other words, George Will said that if we all think like young people and they are the future, then we're going to consider gays and the rights of lesbians and homosexuals and gay people just like we consider left handed people and color blind people. That's from George Will. If George Will can recognize it, I believe the rest of us can as well. Let's just clear up a few things this bill does not do. It does not allow more than one person to marry or enter into civil unions. It does not allow civil unions between a man or a woman and a young boy or girl. It does not give any special rights for gay people. Let's get that clear. In fact, gay people still come up a little bit short because they can't have that full thing of marriage. So what it does is provide equal rights virtually, nothing special. A song that I love a great deal was by Rod Stewart who is coming to the Verizon Center in less than a month. I hope he sings the song. It's called The Killing of Georgie about a young gay person who realizes that he is gay and leaves home and ends up getting killed on the cruel streets of New York City. There is a line that I would like to quote as I leave you and I would like you to think about it because we all deserve what Georgie wanted, nothing more and nothing less. Rod Stewart wrote and sang to us, "His mother's tears fell in vain the day Georgie tried to explain that he needed love like all the rest." It's time to say that gays and lesbians need love like all the rest and we honor the right to that love. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)No. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. A roll call has been requested and sufficiently seconded. We are down to our last two speakers. I would ask the Sergeant at Arms to please ask members to come up from the common room and in from the anteroom and quietly take their seats. The Chair recognizes the member from Londonderry, Rep. Baldasaro.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The House will be in order.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)First of all before I get started, for my friend from Manchester about being the will of the people. I hope we all wake up here because this is a small minority pushing the choices on the will of the people. Okay, so this here is not the will of the people and they will speak here come 2008. Thank you. You heard fellow Representatives tell you the homosexual rights are being stepped on is unconstitutional. I come to you today as a straight speaker and I don't use no three dollar words. I tell it like it is. Okay, and I will try to stay right to the point. This is a choice. I am tired of hearing about civil rights. Okay, this has nothing to do with your rights. This is your choice. You choose it. Whether you choose male on male or female on female or you're a male with two women, it does not make a difference. That's your choice. This is a stepping stone to an agenda and we all know it. As a fellow Representative, I agree with what was said before. This is a shame. It's actually a shame on the good people of New Hampshire that you have to sit here and listen to discussions here with people pushing their agenda. Hello, this is about opening the door. I want to make sure. This is about opening the door to the gay agenda. This is about marriage. This ain't about unions. This is about getting equal rights as a male/female. That's been around for many years. That's all this is about. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the stepping stone, as I said, to teaching our children from kindergarten on as they do in Massachusetts. This is about telling our kids that it's alright for Johnny and Joey to kiss together and cross dress or whatever. This is about Mary and Lucy or whatever coming together in our schools. Okay? This must stop right now because there is a slope that we're going down with this here. This is wrong. I wish you'd keep your choices in the bedroom and not push them on to the American people or the people of New Hampshire. I notice my friends, on the other side are in sequence on their votes. There is an agenda and it's not the peoples or New Hampshire's agenda. It's a national agenda. I hope that you keep the Massachusetts agenda out of New Hampshire because we talk about immigration. I believe that we need to put up fences around our border and keep the people of New Hampshire. We must not recognize the marriages of Massachusetts. That's what this is leading to. Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization. As a marine, I've been through this once before during the White House a few years ago. I`m not going to mention any names, because I don't know if it's proper or what is or what's not. There was a certain President that was pushing their agenda down on the people of the military. We were disgusted. I was ready to throw in my retirement. We turned around. We talked about okay, now if in the military we're going to have gay sex or gay marriage or homosexuals in the military. The big discussion was were we going to have four bathrooms? Because I as a male marine I refused to take a shower, eat, drink, and sleep with a gay homosexual. I don't knock them because I have them in my family. I love them. This is not about being against them and knocking them down. This is about I don't support their choices and don't push it on me. And let me tell you today, I am not a religious man. I'm a Catholic and I walked away from the church. Okay, so this has nothing to do about religion, the Bible or any of that stuff there. I was married by a justice of the peace 20 years ago to my wife who is disgusted over this and she is a person of the Bible. Okay? Once again I talked to you a little bit about as my experience as a marine because what has to happen in the schools if you approve civil unions. My daughter of 15 years old said "Dad, does this mean that now in high school if lesbians come out and say they're lesbians, I have to take showers with them?" I said you know something, you're right `cause we had talked about this at the dinner table. Okay? So this is opening the doors here because I as a male, as a marine like I was do not want to take a shower with a homosexual. If that's the case, bring in the women and let me shower with women then because it's not right. Once again, let me tell you. Once again, this is not right. This is not about marriage. This is about a hidden agenda. This is about people up there that want to take people to court there if their agenda comes to here. We're going to be fighting them in court. Okay? On other issues this will go all the way to the Supreme Court. So be prepared to pay the good taxpayers' money and we're trying to educate our children so this is what this is all about. Some say that same sex marriage or, you know, should be between a man and a woman and of course they say it's unjust because people that make other choices are not invited in. Well, let me tell you here. Marriage, like I said once again, has been around for many years. Speaker: Will the member please suspend? The question before the House is on Ought to Pass with amendment.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Yes Ma'am, that's what I'm on. I'm on Ought to Pass here. I'm talking about the final bill Ought to Pass. Thank you. I apologize if I did something wrong. Speaker: The bill is not a marriage bill.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Yes Ma'am, you're correct but it's leading us down a slippery slope there to marriage. Is that proper? Today I see my friends once again and of course I dropped my notes here and I'll get with the program. Today I see my friends on the other side voting in sequence. I think we talked about that. This is about a national agenda. This is not about the good people of New Hampshire. We're pushing this around the country. Speaker: Will the member please suspend? I want to explain that Masons 124-3 talks about, says, it is not the person, but the measure that is the subject of the debate and it is not allowable to arraign the motives of another. That means that you cannot assign motives for people's actions in a floor debate so I would ask you to please to refrain from doing that.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Ma'am is that as an individual member or is that as a nation, on an agenda? That's what I'm confused on. Speaker: Well, you should not be assigning motives to others during a floor debate.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Okay. I'll rephrase that then. I apologize. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Today, I see my friends around the country voting in sequence on some special agenda. It's not right. The good people of New Hampshire don't deserve it for a small minority that goes on here. We do not want to be like everyone else. We demand that marriage be between one man one woman and keep your choices in the bedroom. In closing, I'm sure some are happy, I ask all New Hampshire residents to hold people accountable for pushing civil unions on to the great people of New Hampshire, without no say. This is a marriage. Who we trying to kid? In 2008, we will come back and repeal this bill. I guarantee it. So don't get too comfortable. I ask you to put your party platform aside, all of you, and vote for the people of New Hampshire by opposing this gay civil unions. Thank you. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)No, thank you. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on Ought to Pass. The House will be in order. The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with amendment. A roll call has been requested and sufficiently seconded. We are down to the last speaker. I would ask members to please quietly take their seats. The Chair recognizes the member from Somersworth, Dana Hilliard. Please quietly take your seats.

Rep. Dana Hilliard (D - Straf 2)Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's been a long morning, Madam Speaker. As most of you in this Honorable body are aware, I am a high school teacher. I am used to talking for 90 minutes three times a day. I assure you I will not do that. We'll keep all of you happy and I'm going to try and break my record as far as a lesson goes this morning. I'll have to agree with some of the opposition. This isn't about business. This isn't about marriage. You're right it's about something higher. It's about something a little bit more pertinent. It's about something that we identify all as ourselves; all of us together as a collective body. It's about something that holds us together as Americans. It's not about a fight that has been in existence or a battle for 20 years. This thought started, believe it or not, over 400 years ago. Quick history lesson: late 1600's things in Europe got shaken up a little bit by a gentlemen by the name of John Locke when he wrote this famous book called The Two Treatises on Government. Underneath that, Locke talked about this brand new concept called inalienable rights. Locke referred to these rights as life, liberty and property. Bringing you back across the Atlantic - In June of 1776 this gentleman stood up in the 2nd Continental Congress, a gentleman by the name of Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, and called for a Declaration of Independence. Of course that legislative body like us did the norm, assigned it to a committee for study. The committee then of course did the norm which we like to do, look for the volunteer for who was going to write it. At that point, this 33 year old redhead aristocrat stands up and says, "I'll do it." Thank you, Thomas Jefferson. See, Thomas Jefferson was a scholar of Locke in theory. Mr. Jefferson wrote that document, on his own and with a few editorial changes he produced the greatest human manifesto that has ever been written in western civilization. Mr. Jefferson tweaked Locke in theory a little bit and included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With Lockean theory he included that these are inalienable rights, God given rights, the right of the pursuit of happiness. This is what we identify, us, ourselves, as being part of American. This is the fabric of our foundation; such the fabric of the foundation of the citizens of this state that we included it in Article 2 of the New Hampshire constitution. This is part of who we are. This is part of what we are committed to. This is part of what we are all about. Today is about the right thing to do. It is about ensuring that we will stand up for inalienable rights for everyone. This country has gone through tremendous growing pains in the past 231 years; the growing pains of civil rights. In July 1776 when we adopted that Declaration of Independence, when we adopted the foundation of who we are, we knew it was going to encompass growing pains. We knew it was going to be a venture to get there. Our history has been plagued with racism. Our history has been plagued with injustice, yet at the end of the day we are still trying to get there. We are still committed to that promise. We are committed to that promise as New Hampshire citizens. We are committed to that promise as American citizens. Why? Because it is the right thing to do; because it is who we identify ourselves as; standing up for those inalienable rights for all. Today is about the current generation of New Hampshire citizens being able to enjoy that promise that we inscribed on that document on July 4, 1776. It's about the future generations of this state being able to partake in that promise. Our state motto "Live Free or Die" is a reflection of this. It is a reflection of the promise that we set forth in our revolution. If we are not willing to deliver on that promise, colleagues, then I ask you, what are we all about? What are we all about as a state? What are we all about as a nation? What are we all about as a people? Now I love activities as a teacher so I would like to indulge you to look at your neighbor to your right, look deep into their eyes and say the following: "You are not worthy." Now look to your left. Look into their eyes and say the following: "You are not worthy." Because by not supporting this today, that's what you are saying. You are not worthy. Speaker: Will the member please suspend? I want to repeat Masons 124-3 which is that you may not assign motives to other peoples' action during floor debate.

Rep. Dana Hilliard (D - Straf 2)Point well taken, Madam Speaker. Great classroom management. Do the right thing today. We set forth great motions with that document. I believe in that document. I believe in the ideals that we stand up for as a state. I believe in the ideals that we stand up for as a nation. I would be willing to sacrifice my life for those ideals. I know that everyone in this body believes that we are all equal. Carry forward on that promise today. Push the green button. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Dana Hilliard (D - Straf 2)In the interest of civil rights, no. Speaker: The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought of Pass with Amendment. A roll call has been requested by Rep. Carson and it has been sufficiently seconded. Will the members please take their seats? The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mooney for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if you know as I do that we debated several floor amendments today because this bill as amended could be greatly improved, and if you know that as responsible legislators our role is to produce the best possible policy for all citizens regardless of gender, and if you further know that this bill is just a subsection of the domestic relations RSA's that refers the reader back to the marriage and the divorce statues, and additionally allows court created marriages outside of New Hampshire to come into New Hampshire and be called civil unions then why not vote this amended bill down so that we can come back with a marriage bill or fair civil unions or both. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker: The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lasky for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bette Lasky (D - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if you know as I know that the time is now to put an end to discrimination for thousands of good and decent New Hampshire families, and if you further know that passing HB 437 as amended will give legal relief and overdue legitimacy to these same families, and if you know as I know that this is a proud day in New Hampshire's history and honors all of us, those who are here and many who are not able to be here, then would you please now vote yes by pressing the green button? Thank you. Speaker: The question before the House is on the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. If you're in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. And I would please ask you to stay in your seats. Voting stations are now open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 243 having voted in the affirmative, 129 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. The Chair recognizes Rep. Splaine. For what purpose does the member rise? Rep. Splaine moves reconsideration on HB 437 and is recognized to speak to his motion.

Rep. James Splaine (D - Rock 16)Madam Speaker. If I am very proud of the equality that the New Hampshire legislature has just given by its vote to the residents of New Hampshire on this historic vote, would I say no? Speaker: The question before the House is on the motion to reconsider HB 437. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say Aye. All those opposed Nay. The Nays have it. Reconsideration fails and the committee report is adopted. REGULAR CALENDAR - SPECIAL ORDERS (CONT'D) HB 518-FN, relative to establishing reciprocity for liability limitations on claims against the state and against foreign jurisdictions. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Anthony R. DiFruscia for Judiciary: The purpose of this bill was to begin the process of establishing reciprocal arrangements with other states to limit the liability of each when sued for damages in another. The exposure to damages of each state enacting this or any substantially identical bill would be limited to the statutory limit (if any) enacted by that state, regardless of in which other participating state it was sued. In the case of New Hampshire this would mean that, when sued in the courts of any other participating state, its exposure would be limited to the current statutory cap of $250,000 establishing by RSA 541-B:14, the same limit to which it is exposed when sued in the courts of this state. Several objections to this bill were raised, which included its confusing wording, the questions of why other states would wish to limit the recovery rights of its citizens to a cap so low as that of New Hampshire, and the constitutionality - notwithstanding decisions of our Supreme Court upholding it - of any statutory cap on damage awards, given the right expressed in Article 14 of our Bill or Rights that every subject of the state is entitled to have recourse to a complete remedy of all injuries. Vote 16-0. Committee report adopted. HB 554, requiring that funds in the civil legal services fund be distributed to New Hampshire Legal Assistance to establish an office in Concord. OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Frances D. Potter for Judiciary: Concord area residents needing legal assistance are served by the Legal Assistance Office in Manchester which is stretched thin. NH Legal Assistance has a proven record in easing state and local budgets by helping clients obtain SSI benefit, Medicare coverage, town/city welfare payments and child support in domestic violence cases. The poor and the near-poor (those with incomes at or below the basic needs budget) must often represent themselves in court proceedings - a daunting role - especially for the growing population of elderly. HB 554 has no FN since it only provides for the distribution of existing funds from the civil legal services fund in the office of the state treasurer. Vote 16-1. Committee report adopted. Ordered to third reading. HB 577-FN, establishing the number of associate justices of the superior court. OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Lucy M. Weber for Judiciary: This bill requested by the Supreme Court would increase the number of justices on the Superior Court from 21 to 23. In support of the bill, the court produced a weighted case study showing that, even with the transfer of domestic cases to the Family Court, the Superior Court would require 23.8 associate justices to keep up with the case load. The request was for only two additional associate justices. Vote 16-1. Committee report adopted. Referred to the Committee on Finance. HB 612-FN, relative to coercion of abortion on a minor. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Philip Preston for the Majority of Judiciary: This bill makes anyone who uses or threatens the use of force to make a minor undergo an abortion guilty of a class A felony. It makes a person guilty of a class B felony if he or she uses coercion to induce a minor to have an abortion. Although the committee believed that coercion and the use or threat of physical force in order to procure this type of medical procedure is inappropriate and unjustifiable, it also believed that existing criminal statutes covering simple assault and criminal threatening adequately address the issues raised by the sponsor. Thus the committee decided that additional legislation is unnecessary. Vote 13-4. Rep. Nancy J. Elliott for the Minority of Judiciary: This bill establishes a class A felony if a person uses or threatens the use of physical force against a pregnant minor under 18 years of age in order to force the minor to have an abortion. The bill also establishes a class B felony if a person uses coercion to induce such a minor to have an abortion against her will. There was substantial testimony in committee that there is abuse happening in this state, both physical and psychological. We currently do not have laws that would make this aggressive behavior a crime. As the decision to have an abortion has far reaching consequences, the minority feels that this bill should be passed to protect the girls of this state. Reps. Nancy Elliott and Dumaine spoke against. Reps. Philip Preston and Weber spoke in favor. Rep. Nancy Elliott requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 268 NAYS 99 YEAS 268 Allen, Janet Heald, Bruce BELKNAP Morrison, Gail Nedeau, Stephen Pilliod, James Millham, Alida Chandler, Gene Reever, Judith Patten, Betsey Bridgham, Robert Buco, Thomas CARROLL Butynski, William Cunningham, Howard Heard, Virginia Espiefs, Peter Butler, Edward Plifka, Stanley Jr Knox, J. David Sad, Tara CHESHIRE Mears, Edgar Thomas, Yvonne Burridge, Delmar Butcher, Suzanne Butterworth, Timothy Chase, William Dunn, J. Timothy Eaton, Daniel Hunt, John Lerandeau, Alfred Mitchell, Bonnie Richardson, Barbara Roberts, Kris Robertson, Timothy Weber, Lucy Weed, Charles Hatch, William Ingersoll, Paul Sr COOS Merrick, Evalyn Merrick, Scott King, Frederick Stohl, Eric