Town Meeting: New Hampshire Says NO to Vote to Discriminate

For Immediate Release
Thursday, February 4, 2010

Concord, NH – New Hampshire towns are saying no to the vote to discriminate – an attempt to pressure for passage of a constitutional amendment in New Hampshire that would allow a statewide vote on the definition of marriage.

The non-binding town meeting resolutions state: ‘The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines “marriage”.’ A petition of just 25 people in each town allows the resolution on the spring ballot.

“This is about taking away rights and overturning marriage equality, pure and simple,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, director of the organization Granite State Progress, which is running the education campaign to expose the vote to discriminate. “It’s wrong to vote on rights. In New Hampshire, we don’t vote on taking away the rights of our fellow citizens.”

Towns in New Hampshire began deliberative sessions this week for town meeting, a process which allows amendments to town warrant articles. In the last week, voters in Rindge, Rye, Winchester, Alstead, Deerfield, Bethlehem, Goffstown, Wolfeboro, and Londonderry (town charter) all rejected the vote to discriminate.

Wolfeboro amended the language to: “The citizens of New Hampshire commend the governor and legislature for supporting equal rights for all New Hampshire citizens.” Other towns struck most of the language, leaving “To see” or “The voters of New Hampshire should be” to appear on the March 9 ballot.

Londonderry, a charter town with a different process, hosted a public hearing on Monday night to discuss the petition put forward by Rep. Al Baldasaro (R-Londonderry), one of the figureheads behind the resolutions. Following a student rally and a standing-room only public hearing, the town council rejected the petition. Baldasaro has indicated that he will try to collect signatures from 5% of registered voters, which would automatically place it on the ballot.

“This issue has already been decided in New Hampshire and I’d rather we spent the time talking about jobs and the economy,” said Londonderry resident Lisa Fersch, who teamed up with other stay-at-home moms to challenge the petition. “New Hampshire is the live free or die state. Al Baldasaro thinks it’s the live free or die state unless you’re gay.”

Other towns expressed similar sentiments. Winchester resident Mary Gannon told her neighbors, “It is a mockery to take away the rights of others under the guise of the right to vote. I encourage my fellow community members to vote yes on this amendment because the warrant article, as currently worded, encourages our community to vote to discriminate.”

“Despite all the protestations to the contrary, the underlying purpose of this movement is to discriminate against gays,” Bethlehem resident David Wood said at his deliberative session. “We do not discriminate against our neighbors here. Many years ago, Bethlehem ended its discrimination against Jewish people and we are not about to go back there again. Not in this town, not tonight.”

Granite State Progress worked in a set number of towns for the first swing of deliberative sessions. Wakefield, Pelham, Swanzey, Littleton and Charlestown also offered amendments but the resolution remained as submitted. Votes in these towns were largely quite close; the amendment in Pelham was defeated by seven votes, in Charlestown it lost by three votes.

Most people had been unaware that the petition was on the agenda before Granite State Progress alerted them. Towns with advance notice have fared better.

“People are coming together to expose the vote to discriminate for what it really is,” Rice Hawkins said. “Granite State Progress has been fielding calls all week from communities that want to challenge the vote to discriminate and ensure that marriage equality continues to be a proud New Hampshire civil liberty. We’re proud that New Hampshire neighbors are standing together and saying no to discrimination.”

###

For reference, New Hampshire State House bills:

CACR 28 (Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution): “Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage.” To pass, a constitutional amendment needs the support of three-fifths of both the House and the Senate, and then approval by two-thirds of state voters. Similar amendments were defeated in 2006 (Republican leadership), 2007 (Democratic leadership).

HB 1590: Repeal House Bill 436, which passed marriage equality.

Neither bill is anticipated to pass.

Back to Granite State Progress