Pro-Polygamy.com
Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

  MEDIA:   Interview Requests    Join Media List  
  Pro-Polygamists:   Join NOTICES List    Links 


<-- Previous          Next -->

Op-Ed

NH’s "Same Sex Marriage" Law "Discriminates" Against Polygamy

Date: Jun 04, 2009
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: same sex marriage, New Hampshire, "discrimination"


Contrary to its supporters' claims, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law does not provide "equal access to marriage for all." While even surprisingly codifying marriage for monogamous heterosexual minors, the new law intentionally "discriminates" against polygamous consenting adults. 

On June 3, 2009, the State of New Hampshire became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construct of same sex marriage, enacting "HB 436, An Act relative to civil marriage and civil unions." 

The "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered" (GLBT) community hailed the new law as a civil rights victory.   Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly "ended discrimination" for everyone. 

But the law did no such thing.   Rather, it intentionally "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamists - indeed, on purpose. 

Previously, New Hampshire's RSA 457:1 and 457:2 established a combined anti-incest and anti-homosexual prohibition.   "RSA 457:1 Marriages Prohibited; Men" banned a man from marrying a relative or another man.   Likewise, "RSA 457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Women" prohibited a woman from marrying a relative or another woman.   Banning only incestuous and same sex marriages, neither of the former statutory paragraphs mentioned polygamy at all. 

The new law (HB 436), however, completely changed the "man-only" applicability of RSA 457:1 by replacing it, instead, with the new re-definition of marriage as "2 individuals," "2 people," "regardless of gender."   It was divided into two paragraphs, 457:1 and 457:1-a. 

The new "457:1 Purpose and Intent" paragraph now declares, "The purpose of this chapter is to affirm the right of 2 individuals desiring to marry and who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of this chapter to have their marriage solemnized in a religious or civil ceremony in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." 

The newly added "457:1-a Equal Access to Marriage" paragraph declares, "Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people.   Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated 'bride,' 'groom,' or 'spouse.'" 

HB 436 also completely changed the "woman-only" applicability of RSA 457:2, making it the combined "Marriages Prohibited" paragraph.   The new RSA 457:2 combined only the anti-incest prohibitions from the original 457:1 and 457:2 - while not listing the former same gender prohibitions.   However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional "discrimination."   The new RSA 457:2 now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision. 

To wit, the new "457:2 Marriages Prohibited" now declares, "No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father's brother, father's sister, mother's brother, mother's sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son's son, son's daughter, daughter's son, daughter's daughter, brother's son, brother's daughter, sister's son, sister's daughter, father's brother's son, father's brother's daughter, mother's brother's son, mother's brother's daughter, father's sister's son, father's sister's daughter, mother's sister’s son, or mother's sister's daughter. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time." 

The very last sentence there was completely new.   Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead.   They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely "discriminate" against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest. 

The matter gets worse.   After purposely "discriminating" against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage. 

Previously, the "RSA 457:4 Marriageable" paragraph had declared, "No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void." 

To replace that language, the new law (HB 436) amended "RSA 457:4 Marriageable" to now declare, "No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void." 

Thereby, same sex marriage activists codified marriage for under-aged heterosexual minors while simultaneously "discriminating" against voting-age consenting adult polygamists, on purpose. 

In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end "discrimination" at all.   It absolutely does not provide "equal access to marriage" for all.   Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamists. 


###


Bibliographic URLs:




Same-sex marriage becomes law in NH 
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Same-sex+marriage+becomes+law+in+NH&articleId=ac4816e1-7ac9-4694-b89c-b6174c8b6a87 
 
 
New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html 
 
 
 
 
HB 436 - AN ACT relative to civil marriage and civil unions. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html 
 
HB 73 - AN ACT affirming religious freedom protections with regard to marriage and prohibiting the establishment of civil unions on or after January 1, 2010. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0073.html 
 
 
 
New Hampshire Statutes - Table of Contents 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc.htm 
 
 
NH RSA CHAPTER 457: MARRIAGES 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIII-457.htm 
 
 
NH RSA 457:1 Marriages Prohibited; Men. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-1.htm 
 
 
NH RSA 457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Women. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-2.htm 
 
 
NH RSA 457:4 Marriageable. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-4.htm 
 
 
 
 
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.] 




Pro-Polygamy supporters! Be notifed of latest
 Alerts/Releases.    Subscribe to NOTICES list. 

Enter Address:
PREVIOUS Headline
2009 May 07
Maine’s "Same Sex Marriage" Law "Discriminates" Against Polygamy
Contrary to claims by homosexuals, Maine's new "Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage" does no such thing. By the same terms of its supporters, the new law openly "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamists.
NEXT Headline
2009 Jul 04
July 4, 2009 - Christian Polygamy Movement is 15 Years Old
On this Independence Day, 2009, the new social movement of Christian Polygamy is 15 years old.

  MEDIA:   Interview Requests    Join Media List  
  Pro-Polygamists:   Join NOTICES List    Links 

www.Pro-Polygamy.com





Latest Headlines
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


2010 Sep 01
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
Joseph Henrich, from the University of British Columbia, filed a biased anti-polygamy report for a Canadian Supreme Court case considering the issue of polygamy. The report regurgitated the unproven "unmarried criminals" theory without source-attribution, used the same flawed interpretation technique which his other published academic research denounced, and contradicted established economic principles and easily available evidence in Western societies that actually indicate an under-supply of men who want to marry women.


2010 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 10th Annual "Polygamy Day"
On August 19, 2010, pro-polygamists throughout America are celebrating "Polygamy Day 10" – now being the tenth year of Polygamy Day ® celebrations.


2010 Aug 06
Marriage Control Reversals in 2 States Heading to Supreme Court
Two cases in Massachusetts and one case in California raise three challenges to one-man/one-woman government marriage control, respectively based on the 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If the 10th Amendment challenge succeeds at the Supreme Court, then either side may then choose to use it as they lose other marriage control battles - i.e., finally choosing to use the Polygamy Rights Win-Win Solution to end the debate.


2010 Jul 28
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
Unanimously determining that the lower court had given improper instructions to the jury in the original 2007 trial, the Utah State Supreme Court reversed the two "felony rape as an accomplice" convictions of Warren Jeffs - leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS – for his ordering the arranged marriage of an unmarried 19 year old young man to his 14 year old cousin, Elissa Wall.


2010 Jul 01
Marry Non-Humans? Funny TV Sound-bite Flattens Slippery Slope
On the "Stossel" show on FOX Business Network, a segment discussing the prohibition of polygamy ended with everyone laughing from an unexpected new sound-bite - a humorous response which may now be repeated to flatten the "marrying non-humans" slippery slope argument.


2010 Jun 10
Arizona Dismisses Charges Against Criminal Warren Jeffs


2010 Mar 23
10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage - Quotes


2009 Dec 26
“Facebook’s Anti-Privacy Settings” Exposed Polygamy Activists


2009 Dec 01
End Marriage Control from Both Sides - The Win-Win Solution


2009 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 9th Annual Polygamy Day ®




Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles





Copyright © 2003 - 2010     ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"Pro-Polygamy.com" is an exclusive legal Trademark of Pro-Polygamy.com ™ .