We're a bit late getting to this; on Wednesday, the New Hampshire Senate passed (with a narrow margin) to allow same-sex couples to marry.
It was passed with a 13-11 vote, and only after language in the bill was amended granting religious groups and organizations legal protections who do not want to perform same-sex marriages. (Could this be due to a recent kerfuffle in Iowa over judges giving up their rights to perform marriages altogether to avoid marrying gay folks?)
The House, who passed the bill just a month ago, now has to approve those changes and place the final bill in the hands of Governor John Lynch, who made this statement on its passage:
"I recognize that the issue of same-sex marriage is intensely passionate and personal, and raises strong emotions on all sides."I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."
This doesn't sound super hopeful, so sign a petition or contact the governor's office directly; there's no time to waste.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, while marriage equality matters to the Senate, transgender anti-discrimination laws aren't up for discussion. (As it wasn't in the House either. What a disappointment.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New Hampshire One Step Closer to Marriage Equality .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13429
The kerfuffle was in Iowa, not Ohio.
Go NH!
The NH senate voted down a transgender-inclusive non-discrimination law the same day they passed same-sex marriage.
Nice job totally ignoring that! Fail.
Yeah, it's one step forward for social equality, two steps back.
I'm glad the NH legislature supports same sex marriage, but I still say fuck the NH legislature.
I read about it here:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/new-hampshire/
Please -- assuming you don't live in New Hampshire, the only reason the NH legislature is on your radar screen to say fuck it to is that it's finally beginning to deal with these issues. Before we tossed out a bunch of rightwing dinosaurs in '06, they never even came up. We will get there.
She can be upset about it as she wants. It is horrible that while the LGB community is moving forward the T is consistently left back. Not only did the bill forbidding discrimination based on gender identity not pass, it was unanimously not passed. It does not matter that the only reason someone may have heard about it is because other issues are advancing.
Also it is incredibly condescending to tell someone to just wait on basic rights. That's bullshit and we have every right to be pissed that transgender individuals are still getting shit on and that equality is still not provided for all.
I'm confused as to why you're upset by my comment.
Not upset, just saying you may not realize how far we've really come in these last few years, and I may not realize how far we haven't come. There are some here who worry about a backlash that might even roll back civil unions.
One anecdote: Not long ago, my girlfriend went to a local Hallmark shop to get a card for a co-worker who was celebrating a civil union. She couldn't find a card; the clerk told her they'd carried them, but a some group had threatened to picket the store because of it and the owner had caved. So the right may have minority status for now, but they haven't gone away. It's not a reason not to press forward, but there are no guarantees at this point for transgender rights OR gay rights.
Chickensh*tEagle -
I think Punchbuggy Green is right to be pissed. While I do believe gay marriage equality is an important issue, transgender discrimination is a matter of life and death. Trans men and women are being fired and losing their homes simply because they are trans. Many are forced into sex work because it's the only work available. A unanimous vote to support that discrimination is a huge slap in the face. Why aren't you more disturbed by it?
Just because I said our legislature deserved credit for what it had done doesn't mean I don't think Punchbuggy Green doesn't have a right to be pissed at that unanimous vote. But you weren't with me when I heard the news, so just HTF can you say I wasn't upset by it? 'Nuff said.
Make that "...doesn't mean I don't think Punchbuggy Green has a right to be pissed...." etc.
Oops! Thanks for that, have changed.
Your edit is really inadequate. Tacking on an update like that shows how low of a priority you make trans rights. Your post reads like: "Ooh, yay, same-sex marriage is important and we should work hard to make it happen in New Hampshire because there's no time to waste! Here's what we need to do! Take action! (and btw I forgot to mention sucks to be trans in NH)"
Firstly, my first comment ("Oops...") was responding to bifemmefatale's note that I wrote "Ohio" instead of "Iowa" by accident, so wanted to make that clear.
I wasn't aware of the rejection of the Senate bill until you made it aware to me, which I greatly appreciate. It's generally not standard for a blogger to completely edit the title and entire post hours after it's published, but I wanted to put an update to be accurate before we put together a whole post about the Senate rejection. You're right in that it deserves its own post, and will be put up soon.
The Maine Senate also passed a marriage equality bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/us/01maine.html
You'd think New Hampshire would get a little worried about automatically exporting its entire marriage economy given that, assuming Maine goes for equality first, it will be ringed entirely by gay-marrying states.
1. Yay!
2. MzBitca, Punchbuggy simply questioned why it was upsetting. There was no admonishment for chicken being upset.
Also, would you rather that trans issues not be talked about at all? I too am upset that New Hampshire isn't seeing the light, but that doesn't at all mean that there hasn't been any advancement. It's a huge deal that it's even a part of the conversation, when so few years ago it wasn't hitting any legislature, let a lone a newspaper. The fight for trans rights is alive and moving quite quickly considering how long it's taken other historically discriminated against groups, including the "LGB" community (keep in mind T is a fairly new addition to the pot).
I think it's quite narrow-minded that we talk about "lgb" rights and pretend like they don't effect trans people and vice versa. They absolutely do! The T doesn't just fall off and get put on when it's convenient for the speaker. This right to marry isn't just for LGB folk, it's for everyone and I do mean everyone, including straight folk and trans folk. Inequality anywhere is inequality everywhere.
3. Anacas, perhaps you would like to see an article related to the disservice, but that wasn't the intention of this one. This one was about marriage in New Hampshire. Perhaps Vanessa did not get that information until you mentioned it or she wanted to put the info in a nother article, you don't know. Your summary of what she wrote is pretty skewed. She didn't have to mention it at all. It's pretty clear that she felt she should and so did to get it on people's radars. Maybe it'd be more productive to suggest NH trans legislation as a topic for a future article. No need to knock people for their efforts. Constructive criticism is more effective than "FAIL"
my response was to chicken, not punchbuggy.
my b, strike that part then.
Ah, I see--we should be grateful we're hearing about trans* rights at all. Glad we cleared that up.
You'll have to excuse the snark, but a lot of us are understandably frustrated, because the T isn't a "fairly new addition to the pot"--we've only recently gotten a seat at the table, yes, but trans* folks (particularly trans* women of color) have been instrumental in the fight for LGB rights since Stonewall (and before).
I'm pretty aware of how marriage equality affects trans people, thanks. There's nothing wrong with discussing same-sex marriage and trans-inclusive non-discrimination law separately, but in NH a victory for one and a loss for the other happened on the same day--and many feminist and LGB(t) rights groups/blogs are celebrating the first while completely ignoring the second. That? Is failing. Non-constructive criticism would have been to say the post failed without explaining why. I said what was missing, and provided a link with more information. I'm not going to sugar-coat when I'm pointing out a misstep this big that's part of a much larger pattern of ignoring trans issues in favor of more LGB focused ones.
If I or someone else hadn't pointed out the oversight, the comments would have been a chorus of "Yay New Hampshire!" without any recognition or respect for the fact that both a victory and a crushing defeat for equal rights happened. That hurts a lot for people who care about trans rights.
What's up with the big blogs being all "Yay New Hampshire! Oh, crap, huh, totally wasn't paying attention to this--here's a tiny bit of information"?
In contrast with your coverage, here's the tweet from GLADLaw on the afternoon of the 29th:
A glance at the GLAD homepage shows they're giving a lot of space to marriage equality, but they're also featuring full articles on trans* rights, and "Everyone Matters: Dignity and Safety for Transgender People" is one of their main features.
How hard is it to be paying attention to news sources like this? I'm tired of trans* rights being an afterthought.
Anybody interested in Maine? A gay marriage passed in the Senate and is now going to the House, after a hearing last Wednesday(which was amazing). There's worries it's going to be put to a vote, because the lines are drawn quite evenly.
Seriously? Is no one talking about Sweden?
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/International/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&Format=1&artikel=2739765