Clad in jeans and loose-fitting sweaters, Rachel Gogan and Katie Raynes walked into the side room of a church basement yesterday and joined in a precedent-setting civil union ceremony.
And then they drove home to Dover for a quiet lunch.
The women, both in their mid-20s, were casual history-makers, among the first of about 100 couples in New Hampshire to unite under the state’s civil union law that took effect yesterday. Their more formal and emotional, though unofficial, union took place in October, when friends and family gathered for a ceremony and party in Maine.
“We already had our wedding. This was the signing of our paperwork. The state’s finally catching up with us,” Gogan said.
New Hampshire became the fourth state to allow civil unions of same-sex couples.
[i]Debbi Lee, 51, and Debbie Covey-Lee, 54, joined in civil commitment to mark the anniversary of their religious ceremony [b]in an Episcopal church[/b], held in Portsmouth on New Years Day eight years ago.[/i]
At least Mr. Bruno can say it didn’t happen in HIS diocese!
Two women cannot have a wedding. Doesn’t work. No matter what the civil authorities say.
AP+
Hmm. One hundred couples. Two hundred individuals. The population of NH is a bit less than a million and a half. Even with only 1% of the GP being gay, that’s a demand for marriage by only 1.52% of the gay population.
Imagine only 1.5% of Southern blacks registering to vote in 1966. Now stop laughing.
…and what will happen when those “joined” in NH want to enforce “marital” rights of inheritance etc in the other 49 states? Or when they “divorce” and one partner demands alimony? Child support? A share in the military pension? Sheesh – what a mess.
#4 — it already is a mess. Here’s a situation that has already risen in Vermont (which has recognized civil unions for several years).
Two guys from another state (let’s say Virginia) get a civil union in Vermont. Vermont does not have a residency requirement for civil unions, just as it does not have a residency requirement for marriage. OK so far, at least as far as Vermont goes.
A few years later, the couple splits. They can’t get a divorce in Virginia, because Virginia does not recognize their legal status. They can’t divorced in Vermont, because Vermont (like most states) _does_ have a residency requirement for jurisdiction over a divorce action.
Legal limbo.
The question is, will SSC’s (or SSC’s in the process of splitting) use this type of situation to force states to recognize civil unions/same sex marriage? Don’t laugh, it’s not as far fetched as one might think.
[i]…force states to recognize civil unions/same sex marriage[/i]
OK, so why is this bad ? I am genuinely puzzled as to why same-sex civil unions is a problem for people. If you don’t want a same-sex civil union, then don’t get one. Feel free to preach against it in your church. Only allow opposite-sex couples to wed there.
But why should [i]your[/i] religious viewpoint be allowed to impact the civil rights of your fellow citizens who don’t share that viewpoint ? This is why we have church/state separation woven so deeply into our system of government…
Palnonian, there is an amendment to the Georgia constitution prohibiting the legal recognition of and giving benefits to unmarried people in “commited” relationships. Should we scrape our state constitution and representative government for about 1% of the gay population?
#4 – President Bill Clinton signed a Defense of Marriage Act in ’96 that protects states from getting legally embroiled in same-sex recognitions by other states. You can read about it in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I suppose the constitutionality of the act could be challenged…
[blockquote]If you don’t want a same-sex civil union, then don’t get one.[/blockquote]
And if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.
The law is a teacher, Planonian, and civil unions teach that the differences between man and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend are bagatelles.
Given that man and wife are the only reliable source for the mass production of well-adjusted human beings, even Communists would recognize that marriage is important and valuable in ways that the other relationships simply do not approach.