Working For Equality In Washington, D.C.

Two of three major equality measures are working their way through Congressional discussions in Washington -- The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill and the matter of repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of gays and lesbians in the military. Eliminating the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the third measure, which in addition to eventual Congressional attention is being challenged in the Courts by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It would be great if New Hampshire joined that action, and I have sent a letter to Governor John Lynch requesting that he consider doing that.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is strong on both issues. He pointed out this past week that sign-ups in the military are down, and "...we shouldn't turn down anybody that's willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation." That should make sense to everyone -- regardless of political philosophy. 

Senator Reid also says he supports at the least an 18-month moratorium on enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The thought is that while that moratorium is in place, the policy will change. President Barack Obama recently advocated eliminating the ban, and recognizes the need for creating a consensus to do so since in most of this country there is still considerable legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Congress is also considering an expansion of the federal definition of "hate crimes" to include those committed against victims on the "basis of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disabilities."  Senator Reid spoke on that issue accompanied earlier this week by Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, who was tied to a fence, beaten, tortured, and killed by two men inWyoming a decade ago. He was a 21 year old University of Wyoming student at the time. Hate crime legislation, in effect in numerous states, allows for prosecutors to add to the severity of charges and thus the sentence when the crime is committed against a person because of his or her characteristics, such as race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation or identity.

Two excellent movies are available about Matthew Shepard, including "The Matthew Shepard Story," a 2002 television movie, and "The Laramie Project, a play turned into a 2002 movie. Although a bit more "Hollywood" than documentary, "Hate Crime," (2005) is a drama that should convince any doubter about the value for such legislation. All are available through Amazon, or I will loan a copy. "The Matthew Shepard Story" is even available on YouTube in broken 10-minute pieces.

Former State Senator Rick Trombly's Letter About House Bill 436

Rick Trombly is a former NH State Senator and House Democratic Leader -- dating back to the 1980s through to 2002. Rick, who is openly gay, came out on the floor of the Senate while supporting legislation allowing for adoption for gay and lesbian parents in 2000.

He also joined me that year in leading the fight to abolish the death penalty, and was the deciding vote in the Senate in passage of that bill that year which had already passed the House. It was then was vetoed by Governor Jeanne Shaheen.

Back a few years ago, former Somersworth State Representative Dana Hilliard and I asked him to write the first draft of the Civil Unions bill that we introduced in October of 2006. Unlike similar legislation in other states which went into dozens of pages of legalese, Rick -- a lawyer by profession -- came up with the innovative method of preparing an 8 paragraph bill that simply "piggybacked" on our extensive state marriage statutes. After several other redrafts, it remained a short 1 1/2 page bill that stood any question of court challenge or constitutionality, and became law in May of 2007 with the signature of Governor John Lynch.   In drafting the current marriage equality legislation, HB 436, we followed his guide, so we have a simple and clear bill.

With his permission, I am posting this letter that he has individually mailed this weekend to State Senators.   His words here are powerful and obviously heart-felt, and his message is a good one. It's a bit long, but worthy of a thorough read.  - Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator,

I never thought I would be writing this letter to you, but after the Judiciary Committee’s 3-2 vote to kill marriage equality, I can't imagine remaining silent. I do not know if this letter will change your mind; I ask only that you consider what I say when you vote next Wednesday. I know that you did not ask for this issue to be placed before you.

Many of you voted for civil unions believing that once that legislation was enacted the LGBT community would have the ability to form relationships with the legal rights long denied them. The profound change that vote made for tens of thousands of gay men and lesbian cannot be overstated and it should not be forgotten.

It was a proud and historic day in New Hampshire, and it was done in the Senate solely with Democratic votes. A year ago I said civil unions are good enough. You passed a strong law giving the LGBT community all the rights and responsibilities, and the consequences of marriage. I no longer hold that position.

I believe no member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, in his or her heart, is opposed to marriage equality. If the vote next week were based on how you all truly feel about the fairness of the bill, no one could convince me it wouldn't receive the vote of every Democrat. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Some say this is really only about a word and that if the bill is defeated the LGBT community will still have civil unions.

Over the past year as I thought about marriage equality I came to realize that marriage is not really the certificate or the ceremony or even the rights bestowed on two people by the state. Marriage is a state of mind. It is what people feel in their hearts and what their relationship says to the world. I will trade anyone my right to a civil union if they give me their right to a marriage. I suspect there will be no taker, proving the point that marriage is more than a word or the rights that go with it.

An opponent of the bill said that, by voting no, she was not reducing any rights already held by the LGBT community. This “no harm no foul” philosophy does affect people. When Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation he freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Every slave in the North and in the border states was still a slave. Every slave in the Confederacy was still a slave.

The legal status of not one slave was changed by his action. One might also argue it did nothing, yet even today that document speaks to the basic American belief in equality. Last year I voted for a woman for president of the United States. Many people said the nation was not ready for a woman president Last year I voted for a Black American for president of the United States. Many people said the nation was not ready for a Black president.

Some say the time is not right for marriage equality in New Hampshire. Just when then is the right time to do these things? Some have assumed that every Democratic senator would vote for marriage equality. The assumptions are based on your political careers that demonstrate your commitment to equality, working for those who have less, and never giving up the fight for what is right. These assumptions may be wrong or unfair but you can see how and why they are formed.

Because of these assumptions those who vote to kill marriage equality will no doubt hear from many friends and strangers, in language that will be difficult to read and to hear. For those of us who will be affected by this legislation the time is now and the best opportunity to make this happen is with this Democratic Caucus.

It is frustrating to hear that basic equality must be put on hold for some unidentifiable event that may occur sometime in the future. We believe now is the time for change and you are its agent. It is said that in politics timing is everything. I don't entirely agree with that statement. Important changes most often occur at unexpected and inconvenient times. The minutemen of Lexington and Concord did not choose when the British would march on their towns.

There was no kick-off date for the start of the American Revolution. Rosa Parks didn't give notice that she would be just too damn tired after a full day of work to move to the back of the bus. Did the supporters of the Roe v. Wade decision ask for a delay to determine when the political winds would be blowing in the right direction so that a woman’s choice over her own body would be more acceptable to those who opposed it? Change begins with an act. Often a very bold and unexpected act that requires people of like minds to step forward and fight the hard fights until the battle is won. These people provide the oxygen for the fire.

Like you, they do not get to pick the time and the place, but they do step up to the plate to say enough is enough. The message you send next Wednesday to the nation will be loud and clear. It will be either, New Hampshire stands for true equality and that living free still means something or it will be New Hampshire is a poster child for right-wingers, only adding momentum to their fight to keep gays and lesbians second class citizens.

This vote is that significant. One side will celebrate, the other will not. Where will you cast your lot? Earlier I wrote of Abraham Lincoln and the effects of his Emancipation Proclamation. In closing I would like to go back to that time when a great man did great things. Abraham Lincoln gave one thing to America’s slaves: hope, nothing more and nothing less. But that hope carried a nation through three more years of civil war and then reconstruction, Jim Crow, Selma, Montgomery, Plessey v. Ferguson, and finally 100 years later to victory.

Do gays and lesbians have to wait that long for marriage equality? Shouldn't our slaves have been given justice immediately after the Proclamation was issued? Hasn't the time really come to pass this bill? When I practiced law full time my practice was overwhelmingly domestic relations. I handled hundreds of abuse and neglect and CHINS cases. I have seen a child who was raped by his father with the stick end of a toilet plunger. I have seen a judge stop a hearing to tell the parents of two children that he has seen people treat their pets better than they did their kids. I represented people who were married for two weeks before they sought a divorce and I have sat with people accused of murdering their spouses. How come they can get married and I can't?

Why can Pam Smart remarry and I can't get to do it just once? The fact that these people get to participate in a marriage is humiliating to me. What virtue do they possess that your gay and lesbian friends are lacking? It is humiliating to hear that I am not fit to marry but they are. In closing, I would ask if you vote no, that you tell the LGBT community why you did so.

If you say because it isn't time, or that civil unions are good enough or that it’s only a word, we just don't buy that. If it is because you truly believe gays and lesbians should not get married, whether that is a culturally based or religiously based decision, it is at least honest and it won't be as disappointing in the end. I envy you your position. How many people have the chance to create change -- substantial, meaningful change for the good? Not many. Not many at all.

You didn't ask for this fight but you are the only hope we have. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. The importance of this issue is demonstrated by the emotion of the fight. Either marriage equality in New Hampshire will prevail or it won't.

In the beginning I asked you to consider what I write here. I hope if you were going to support the bill I have confirmed what you had already concluded. If you were voting against the bill I hope I have been able to change your mind. I don't know what kind of world you will create for me after the vote on Wednesday. I have no control over that.

I just ask that when I wake up Thursday morning I will know that I am no longer treated differently from my married sister. I think she'd like that too.

Your friend, Rick Trombly

Marriage Equality Is About The Way We Treat One Another As Americans

House Bill 436, which would provide full marriage equality, with the word, for our gay and lesbian friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors, took a step toward approval by surviving on a tie vote during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee this week.

The bill earned a 10-10 tie vote in the Committee, which means that it will go to the House floor next week "without recommendation." In other words, it stands a chance of passage.  I'm sponsoring HB 436 with Reps. Paul McEachern of Portsmouth, Barbara Richardson of Richmond , and Ed Butler of Harts Location.

I know a lot of people don't quite understand why "marriage" is so important for our tens of thousands gay and lesbian residents. I think it's about being treated equally under the law, and being respected as equals under our laws.

Our gay and lesbian citizens have been Americans since this became a country. They fought in its wars. The built businesses. They've been loyal to our nation. Yet, because they are gay, they haven't had fundamental rights until recently. It wasn't until 1997 that here in New Hampshire we passed legislation protecting gays and lesbians in areas of employment, services, and housing. Even today, only 22 states have such protective laws. In most of this country, one can still be fired just for being gay.

Nothing is more important than the way we treat one another. One's sexual identity should not be cause for discrimination, but it is.  If two people of the same gender fall in love and want to share that love and their caring for one another, they can in New Hampshire get a "Civil Union."  I'm happy to have successfully worked to pass our Civil Union Law in 2007. 

I sponsored that bill with the late State Representative Dana Hilliard of Somersworth.  It wasn't an easy task, but with the work of hundreds and thousands of others, we succeeded in giving the rights under our state laws which are otherwise given to differently-gendered couples as "marriage" to our gay and lesbian residents as "Civil Unions."  Currently there are 646 Civil Unions in New Hampshire, all celebrated since the law became effective on January 1, 2008.

But are Civil Unions equal?  Of course not.  Which heterosexual couple in our state would trade their "marriage" for a "Civil Union?"  Companies and corporations can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians who have Civil Unions if, in their contract, they give equality only to a "married spouse." And no federal equality is given to gays and lesbians with Civil Unions.   Civil Unions are separate and unequal. 

In New Hampshire, our marriages are civil.  A man and a woman go to city or town hall, pay $40.00, and get a license.  The couple fills out a form, and then they may be legally married.  IF they wish, they can go through the marriage process by the procedure that their Church has set up for marriages, and then their marriage can be recognized by their personal religion.  I would always defend the right of Churches and religions to continue to be able to make their own procedures, and to allow only ceremonies on their private property which they wish.

House Bill 436 doesn't affect religious marriages at all, not one bit.  It just allows a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to be able to go to their town or city hall and get a marriage license.

America is strong because Americans have long fought for freedom. But freedom also means the right for equal treatment under our laws.  If we're to become even a stronger nation in an unpredictable world in the decades to come -- in a Century that has unforeseen dangers and threats in years to come -- we have to find ways to treat ALL Americans fairly and equally. Marriage equality is an important step toward that goal.

A civilization is known by the way it treats its people, and equality is something that cannot forever be denied.

Marshall Cobleigh: Darn, I Wish I Had Lingered A While Longer

I just wanted to say something about Marshall Cobleigh.

He was House Speaker during my first term, some 40 years ago in 1969. I still remember being in the House Chamber on my first day. I had driven up alone in my Ford Falcon on a snowy early January morning, not quite knowing what I had walked into. Why was I doing this to myself, I thought? It's something I still often ask.

But back to that day. I stumbled around looking for my assigned seat in Division 2, then looked around, fascinated by all the "old people" sitting there. Then I saw this rather young guy with what I'd call a roller-coaster voice and constant smile that often broke into a cascading laugh standing at the podium, heading up the festivities.

I always enjoyed Marshall. He was a good and fascinating man, Republican in his soul but more main street than hardcore, yet he had a solid conservative streak no matter what The Union Leader of the day sometimes wrote about him. And often pictured too -- his face and demeanor allowed for some gentle caricatures in that state's newspaper, which in coming years would find their way onto the Speaker's walls.

Marshall always treated me well. In those early days, there were only a couple of handfuls of us who were under age 30 -- at 20 I had run as the youngest member out of the 424 Legislators. But he never talked down to me. He often ran the Speakership, and used his gavel, with a firm hand -- but I think everyone who served with him will say he was fair. At the very least, he respected people. I think it was because he really liked people.

Marshall was always ready with a quick quip and a whippy wit -- no one and no thing was off limits. There's something very satisfying about that. His sense of humor was extraordinary, and one would see it sometimes at the State House but always across the way a bit at the old Highway Inn, a favorite hangout in those days to talk politics and get away from it all. I won't write any stories. He wrote about some in his book about making sausages. ("We Ain't Making Sausages Here.")

I saw him for the final time last Spring when he was visiting the State House. He was sitting in a hallway on the second floor on a bench, alone, apparently waiting for someone. I said hello as I turned a corner and he let out a bellowing "Hi Jim!" I sat next to him for about two minutes, chatting about the state of the world and such. As I got up to walk away, we shook hands and he broke out in that grin-smile of his and said something about how quickly the years fly by.

I laughed in agreement, and walked off. Darn, I wish I had lingered a while longer. He'll be missed.

The Judd Gregg Decision: Good For Democrats Or Good For Republicans?

Republicans should be happy as rabbits in a cabbage patch with the possibility that President Barack Obama may nominate New Hampshire United States Senator Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary, thus giving a lifelong and conservative Republican a position on his Cabinet. 

I should add that I like Judd Gregg personally, but -- surprise -- I don't care for his politics very much.  I did enjoy his Dad, the late Governor Hugh Gregg, even more -- I worked with him during the final few years of his life on the cause of making the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary more important than ever. 

Interestingly, many New Hampshire Republicans are not thrilled by Judd Gregg's possible nomination, and many of my fellow Democrats, a bit to my chagrin, are jumping with joy. Many Democrats seem to be viewing this as the opportunity of getting Judd Gregg out of our state's politics by putting him into a low-visibility bureaucratic job.

But Commerce Secretary is nothing to sneeze at, and it isn't just a paper-pushing position. In addition to being in the White House Cabinet room on a regular basis, Judd Gregg would be running a department with over 38,000 personnel. He will have hire and fire rights over many employees, and will be bringing onto his team hundreds of new hires as others leave or retire. Don't doubt he will expand and strengthen the role of his department into a variety of far-reaching political, economic and trade areas as well.  Lots of trips.  Lots of media interviews.  Lots of new contacts.

During these past few days, I've expressed my opposition to Judd Gregg's nomination. I'm not as convinced as some of my Democratic colleagues that he's toward the end of his career. I see that he could become Commerce Secretary/Cabinet Member, and use his new role to revitalize the Republican Party in New Hampshire and nationally.

In fact, he's still a young man in political terms, and could well serve in the Cabinet for two or three years, then resign "in good conscience" if he decides he's had enough of the Obama Administration.

He'd be a tough competitor if he decided to run for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, or his endorsement would be a powerful voice for whomever runs. He would be a viable Vice Presidential selection.  He's already been a Governor, a Congressperson, and a longtime Senator -- plus he would have shown some effort at bipartisanship by taking a role in Obama's Administration.  Add to that all those trips, media interviews, and new contacts as Commerce Secretary.

By Judd Gregg going to the White House Cabinet, 2010 also opens up for another run for Senate by John E. Sununu, who in my judgement is a tough competitor for any Democrat currently considering the race.  It heightens and intensifies the voice of NH Republican Chair John Sununu-The-Dad as well.  He would be the lead Republican spokesperson, and I know from my past experience with him that he is quite capable of being so quite effectively.  New Hampshire Republicans would be well-positioned to do very well in an off-year election.

I'm still hopeful that Barack Obama will not finalize his selection of Judd Gregg.  Democrats have a good bench for that job, and there are other Republicans from whom to choose.  But if it is Gregg, Governor John Lynch has to make the tough decision of whom to appoint to Gregg's seat. It should, in my opinion, be a Democrat, but Republicans can make a strong argument that in 2004 the voters decided to choose a Republican, so it's a Republican seat.

Besides, Gregg might not accept the Commerce position unless he has some commitment from Lynch that he'll name a Republican, at least in a "caretaker" role. If so, how does that help Democrats in Washington? I see this entire episode as a loss-loss for New Hampshire and national Democrats; and as a win-win for Republicans.

I hope John Lynch chooses a Democrat, but if it must be a Republican, former Governor Walter Peterson would be my choice.  I've known him since my very first term in the NH House in 1969, and have worked with him these past two years on the "Granny D" voluntary campaign public funding concept, which he could highlight as his legacy in the United States Senate during the next two years. 

We're going to see and hear a lot of discussion about this during the next week or two if Gregg is formally nominated, and John Lynch then has to soon make a replacement appointment. I look forward, though I'm not overly-anxious, to see the discussion and watch what happens.