In The NH Legislature: Major Proposed Changes In NH Right-To-Know Law

There are three bills coming up for public hearings in the New Hampshire House next week. They are set up for public hearings in House Committees next Wednesday, January 14th. Each of them would make substantial changes in our Right-To-Know Law.

Two of them I think make our open meetings law less effective; the last one makes it dramatically more powerful.

As I read it, House Bill 53 is a problem. It sounds harmless, titled "relative to the definition of 'public body' under the right-to-know law." What it does, however, could have far-reaching implications. It removes the words "agency" and "authority" from the definitions of "public bodies" which come under the requirements of the Right-To-Know Law. There are a lot of agencies and authorities in our state. They would be exempt from having to hold open meetings, properly announced. That's the way I read it.

Another piece of legislation, House Bill 72, changes the numbers of voters required to request secret balloting and secret ballot recounts at town meetings. Right now, at any meeting of a town with more than a population of 500 people, just 5 voters can make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote that a vote should be taken by secret ballot. This bill will increase that requirement to 50 voters. At any meeting of a town with a population of 500 or less, right now 3 voters can request secret balloting. This bill changes that to 10. Bottom line, it will take more voters to require a secret ballot in any town meeting.

A third bill is being introduced by a broad group of House members: Representatives Bill O'Brien of Mt. Vernon, Bob Rowe of Amherst, Lynne Ober of Hudson, Al Baldasaro of Londonderry, and Jim Splaine of Portsmouth. Yes, I'm the token Democrat, but I've always supported the strongest application of the NH Right-To-Know Law since when in the 1970s I sponsored two of the most important expansions.

This bill, HB 135, makes one change, just one word, but its implications are obvious. Right now, as a remedy to a violation by a governing body of the NH Right-To-Know Law, a court "may" invalidate the action of the public body or agency violating the law, "if the circumstances justify such invalidation," whatever that means which is wide open to interpretation by a judge.

HB 135 changes the word "may" to "shall." If an action was committed by a governing body or agency in violation of the NH Right-To-Know Law, that action will be invalidated. I think thathelps to guaranteethat every governing body will go out of its ways to cross its "t"s and dot its "i"s when they make votes or take actions that could violate the law,and that's a good thing.

HB 135 primary sponsor Bill O'Brien came up with this quite simple but very important change. A former House member, he's been out of the House the past two years but has returned after winning election last November.

For more information on any of these bills, you might visit the State of New Hampshire WEBSITE(http://www.nh.gov) -- go to "Legislative," then "Bills" or "Calendar" and insert or look for the bill numbers.

Harvey "Milk:" "Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are"

Gay or straight, our lives have been affected by Harvey Milk. He's unknown to most Americans today, but his impact is undeniable. Whether we feel it daily because we're gay or because we're straight and have gay friends or family members whose lives are a little better because this man fought for a cause, Harvey Milk has affected our society.

"Come out, come out wherever you are" was his call after he became the first openly-gay person elected to a political position that high in government at any level. That was 1977.  In the less than a year that he served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors -- that's their version of a Board of Alders or a City Council, he worked successfully to pass a citywide gay equality ordinance, and then worked to defeat a statewide law that would have led to the firing of suspected gay or lesbian teachers.

A fellow Supervisor Dan White unsuccessfully fought some of Milk's initiatives, and after several confrontations shot and killed Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone at their City Hall offices in 1978.

That's history. "Milk" is a movie about it. While it's still playing at some theaters throughout the state, I wanted to write about "Milk," and encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to take a couple of hours to learn about a very good man and his important cause.

I can't call "Milk" entertainment. It's a tremendous movie, and should win a number of awards -- Sean Penn is fantastic as usual, and Josh Brolin -- fresh off his portrayal of George W. Bush in "W." -- puts in another great performance as yet another tortured and confused character, this time Dan White.

While "Milk" the movie might not be entertainment in the usual sense of the word, it is a remarkable experience. For some, it will seem like ancient history. To me, it felt like yesterday. Many of the images I remember very well from my trips to San Francisco in many years past.

"Milk" is a history of the gay equality movement but it is much more: it's about the continuing fight against discrimination wherever it exists.   It reminds us that not too long ago, one could be arrested just for going to a gay bar. Imagine that -- police would go into gay bars and arrest people just because they were there. Newspaper photographers would be there with their cameras, and the pictures and names of those arrested would appear the next day. We're talking about the early 1970s. I do remember it well.  None of us should ever forget.

"Milk" is a dramatization, but is based much on history. I've read "The Mayor Of Castro Street," and studied Harvey Milk rather thoroughly during the past thirty years. I've seen "The Times Of Harvey Milk," (which can be seen free on Hulu, just go to http://www.hulu.com/watch/4957) which is a character documentary of his political career and the assassination (1984), and "Execution Of Justice," a made-for-television 1999 movie that was also very well done. "Milk" appears very accurate, and mixes in some period newsreel film with flawless precision.

Had he lived, Harvey Milk would be 78 years old now. I think he would be proud of the progress of the gay equality movement that he pushed along with passion. His call of "come out come out wherever you are" has been answered by millions of openly-gay Americans, including thousands involved in politics and government and business at all levels.

Still he'd be ashamed that one can still be fired or denied housing or services in more than half the states of this nation just for being gay. He'd be depressed at the recent defeat of gay marriage in California, but he would have got a good night's sleep and despite being an older man now he'd be out there the next morning passionately continuing "the movement."

"The movement."  It's a fight that will always have to be engaged because hate and discrimination will always exist, so good men and women have to keep pushing. We'll get there.

"Milk" has another lesson as I watched it, and that is that a person doesn't have to be rich or become President to be in the position to do great things. Passion, idealism, and even tunnel vision toward a single goal sometimes does the job. Harvey Milk wasn't perfect. But he did great things.

Surging More Troops Into Afghanistan Is De Ja Vu All Over Again

The problem with war is that it can always be justified to some. The leader of a country can always stir up enough followers to attack or invade another nation. History is full of examples, even here. I'm not an isolationist, and in defense of our country I'd be among the first to sign up. But "defense" to me doesn't include our actions in Vietnam and adjacent countries in the 1960s and 1970s.

Iraq, we'll all remember, was an action initially supported by some 85% of Americans -- including most Democrats. When I wrote my first commentary opposed to Iraq two months after our invasion the most personal criticism of what I said came from my Democratic friends. Fortunately, we eventually saw that "Mission Accomplished" wasn't, but even in 2004 the tide of American conscience wasn't enough to reject the President who had ordered the invasion.

If we have learned anything in the past few decades, it's that the United States has to be careful -- very careful -- of the wars it engages. In the coming decades, it's clear that we as a nation have to run a smarter war on terrorism, and that also means making fewer enemies abroad.

Too many of those who do consider themselves experts in foreign policy or war quite often make the wrong decisions. They look at their job as a matter of playing chess, always looking for the checkmate -- and their brand of the game too often calls for weapons. Problem is, human beings -- our greed, our hates, our fears, our lust, our motivating beliefs whether religious, political, or personal -- aren't stagnant plastic or wooden figures on a chessboard. Afghanistan is apparently the next big war for America.

President-Elect Barack Obama has already pledged to engage more American combat troops in Afghanistan, possibly doubling the current size of our 33,000 boots on the ground. The idea, advocated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the outgoing Bush/Cheney Administration, is that the United States can then "negotiate" with the Taliban and other tribal chieftains and leaders of insurgent fighters from a "position of strength."

I think we should get out of Afghanistan soon, and not enlarge that war. I'm one of those who believes that "the surge" has little to do with the settling down of hostilities, for now, in Iraq. Iraqis themselves without additional American troops were giving in to divergent political viewpoints, compromising their jealousies, and turning their backs on violence -- which still hasn't stopped by a long shot, but is less now than several months ago. Such often happens in a "war" where there are several separated factions who don't come together as an army. Our additional troops served little purpose, and we've lost hundreds more lives since that surge began.

Haven't we learned anything from Vietnam? President Lyndon Johnson built up our troop levels for years after being "promised" by our military leaders that more troops on the ground would give negotiations a chance. President Richard Nixon went into a policy of widening bombing because he was persuaded that was a way to get to the peace table. Well, it did -- but at what price, and with what result?

Remember, half of the lives of American soldiers, and countless others, were lost while Nixon was President. Every week we're in Iraq and more Iraqis are killed by our actions, we make more generational enemies. More sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of those killed who will forever hate America. And every day we're engaging and killing those who we perceive are "the enemy" in Afghanistan, we're making the next generation of terrorists who will take their hate out on Americans yet born.

The Soviet Union was engaged in that country for almost a decade, and it became their own Vietnam. When I visited Russia in the mid-1990s, the wounds were still deep and people who I spoke with considered their country's involvement there a mistake from the first day. I think history proved that. And while some Americans still argue that our involvement in Vietnam was "a noble cause," most of us think about the more than 50,000 Americans who died there and the deaths of hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of others who lived there as being too high a price -- and for what?

In my view, we need a foreign policy that puts diplomacy first and foremost, and a position that we will avoid foreign entanglements unless a clear threat to our own defense is indicated. Sure it's a bit more complicated than that especially when our allies are attacked, and in those cases we have to help our friends. But invasions and unilateral actions are different matters. We cannot defeat all those who hate America, and our actions too often lead to creating more hate and future generations of terrorists.

A policy of "peace in Afghanistan through strength," which it appears Barack Obama is leaning toward, sounds like echoes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to me, and I lost some friends in Vietnam and still wonder why. We need to get out of Afghanistan soon.

Barack Obama should not let this become his war -- or our next big war. I trust that he will get out as soon as he can, but the indications I've been reading during the past few weeks is that his policy advisors are becoming convinced that surging with more American troops will bring peace. Obama himself said as much during the last few months of the recent election. I don't see it. I'm still wondering why we got so heavily involved with our military in Afghanistan, but that we did makes that question not as relevant as this one: what do we gain by staying there much longer?

About Marriage Equality

I think part of the confusion on the marriage issue is exactly what marriage in New Hampshire is. This is the New Hampshire law on marriage:

CHAPTER 457 - MARRIAGES
Relationship - Section 457:1

457:1 Marriages Prohibited; Men. – No man shall marry his mother, his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's brother's daughter, mother's brother's daughter, father's sister's daughter, mother's sister's daughter, or any other man.
Source. RS 147:1. CS 156:1. GS 161:1. 1869, 9:1. GL 180:1. PS 174:1. PL 286:1. RL 338:1. RSA 457:1. 1987, 218:1, eff. July 17, 1987.

Section 457:2
457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Women. – No woman shall marry her father, her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother's son, mother's brother's son, father's sister's son, mother's sister's son, or any other woman.
Source. RS 147:2. CS 156:2. GS 161:2. 1869, 9:2. GL 180:2. PS 174:2. PL 286:2. RL 338:2. RSA 457:2. 1965, 46:1. 1987, 218:2, eff. July 17, 1987.

Section 457:3
457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. – Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:1 or RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:1 or RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.
Source. RS 147:3. CS 156:3. GS 161:3. GL 180:3. PS 174:3. PL 286:3. RL 338:3. RSA 457:3. 1965, 252:1. 1973, 145:6. 2004, 100:1, eff. May 14, 2004.

Age
Section 457:4
457:4 Marriageable. – 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.
Source. 1907, 80:1. PL 286:4. RL 338:4.

Section 457:5
457:5 Of Consent. – The age of consent shall be in the male and in the female, 18 years. Any marriage contracted by a person below the age of consent, except as hereinafter provided, may in the discretion of the superior court be annulled at the suit of the party who at the time of contracting such marriage was below the age of consent, or at the suit of his or her parent or guardian, unless such party after arriving at such age shall have confirmed the marriage.

That's essentially it. Check out RSA 457 for other references, but there's nothing "religious" about our State marriage law -- beyond the legal requirements above, it's up to each religion to decide its own requirements as to who to allow to be married in their Churches. THAT is what should never be controlled by government.

The Civil Unions Law, by the way, just piggybacks onto the State marriage statutes and allows same-gendered couples to have the same "rights, obligations, and responsibilities" as otherwise given to differently-gendered couples.

Nothing magic here.

I'm Prepared To Be Disappointed On Election Day

It's here!

I'm fairly confident as we go into Election Day that Democrats will do quite well -- statewide here, and throughout the nation. I see New Hampshire shaping up well for John Lynch, Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes, Jeanne Shaheen, and I'm quite sure we'll see at least three Democratic Governor's Councilors, about 262 Democrats in the House, and 18 Democrats in the State Senate. Plus nationally, joining President-Elect Barack Obama will be about 58 or so Democratic U.S. Senators and 250 Democratic House members, perhaps a bit more.

BUT there is one race I'm very concerned about, and it might be my really only serious diappointment on Election Day.  It's on the West Coast, but it hits home to me as if it was right here.

In California, something called "Proposition 8" is on the ballot.  It's a referendum vote about equality.  Already the spending on the issue is in excess of $70 million, with each side spending about the same.  That makes it the second most expensive campaign in the country, second only to Obama-McCain.  The polls indicate that as of right now, each side is running about even -- with about ten percent undecided. 

Proposition 8 was put on the ballot for this election as an amendment onto the California State Constitution.  It would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."  You see, the California Supreme Court a few months ago ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex couples to marry were unconstitutional, and thousands of California gay and lesbian couples have since married. 

The supporters of Proposition 8 -- a "yes" vote is in favor of prohibiting same-sex marriage -- have done some crazy and disappointing things to pass it.  They have sent mass mailings and done thousands of television advertisements saying that unless Prop 8 is approved, all schools will have to teach homosexuality, all Churches will have to allow gay and lesbian marriages, and that heterosexual marriages will be forever harmed, whatever that means.

All that is untrue, and has been refuted by many California officials and office holders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, but fear does sell as we know, and some people make their decisions on myths, not fact.   Eleven percent of us still think Elvis is alive.  Many still believe cancer can be caught by touching.  Many still believe that AIDS is airborne. 

Former President Bill Clinton has recorded a robocall that has been set to the telephones of all Democrats and Independents in California, and we're talking about millions of them.  "This is Bill Clinton calling to ask you to vote no on Proposition 8 on Teusday, November 4th.  Proposition 8 would use state law to single out one group of Californians to be treated differently -- discriminating against members of our family, our friends and our co-workers.  If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're all about.  Please vote NO on 8.  It's unfair and it's wrong.  Thank you."

Good for him.  And among many others, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been trying to bring honesty and sanity to the debate by opposing Prop 8 and supporting the decision of the State Supreme Court.  Good for him too.  And while many Church groups are in favor of Prop 8, many are opposed.  Most newspapers and news media have editorialized against the proposition as well.  However, sometimes people do vote their fears.  Such may be the case on this issue.

I have been watching this issue with daily interest, and helping in the cause from the East Coast in ways I can.  Since I'm hoping New Hampshire will someday soon be the first state to legislatively adopt full marriage equality for gays and lesbians without any action by or threat of court action -- just as we did with Civil Unions last year -- I think the vote in California will either give us a boost, or a bit of another hill to overcome.  But overcome we will, eventually.

On Tuesday, I'll be cheering for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, our New Hampshire Democrats, our good United States Senate and Congressional candidates nationwide, and not least -- success for our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in California.  "Neighbors?"  Yes -- because we're all in this life's adventure together, and to discriminate against anyone anywhere is discriminating against all of us.

Nothing on this planet is more important than the way we treat one another.  If we treated each other faily and equally, we'd eliminate wars, poverty, and so much suffering.  It's a future we'll eventually have, but to get there we'll have to fight hatreds and ignorance and myths all along the way.