With the shadow of the Massachusetts Supreme Court looming and hours of unusually personal testimony, the House voted yesterday to block recognition of gay marriages performed out of state.

It was a move of legislative defense. Many of the bill's supporters warned that the Massachusetts court's recent decision giving gay couples the right to marry would force New Hampshire to recognize those unions. Excluding gay unions was necessary, supporters argued, to prevent the issue from ending up in the courts.

"This emotional bill has nothing substantive to do with how we as legislators feel about same-sex unions," said Rep. Henry Mock, a Republican from Jackson, "but rather how we apply our personal principles for the overall good of this state."

But opponents decried the bill as thinly veiled discrimination, denying homosexuals a right they already don't have in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire law already defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman. But the law doesn't specify how it will treat same-sex unions performed out of state. Yesterday's bill says the state doesn't have to recognize marriages that don't conform to New Hampshire law.

The 215-137 vote was highly partisan, with only nine Democrats voting in favor of blocking gay unions. The House bill was an amended version of the one that passed the Senate in February. The House's version establishes a study committee to review all state laws that would have to be changed if New Hampshire were to adopt gay marriages or civil unions.

Both chambers must now decide whether to form a special conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions of the bill. Gov. Craig Benson has said he supports restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

The four-hour debate preceding yesterday's vote was full of emotional and deeply personal stories from lawmakers. Several House members described their experiences as openly gay men and asked their colleagues to think of the personal impact such legislation would have.

Rep. Corey Corbin, a Democrat from Sandown, compared the effort to restrict gay marriages to Jim Crow laws and the anti-Semitic laws of Nazi Germany.

Corbin spoke of his relationship with his lover of eight years, which he said was no less deserving of the term "marriage" than any other.

"To us, the vow ''til death do us part' actually means something,"Corbin said.

Rep. McKim Mitchell, a Democrat from Chesterfield, spoke of the estrangement from his father and brother caused by his homosexuality. And Rep. Ray Buckley, a Democrat from Manchester, said the bill was inherently homophobic.

"This bill's sponsors believe that they can somehow eradicate homosexuality," Buckley said. "They think if they make the lives of New Hampshire gays and lesbians as miserable as possible, they will somehow make us heterosexual. . . . Well, you cannot make me straight, so get over it."

Others argued that the bill's sponsors were reacting to threats that weren't likely to materialize.

"There will be no stampede of flatlanders who happen to be gay or lesbian into the state of New Hampshire," said Rep. John Pratt, a Democrat from Walpole. "New Hampshire as we know it will go on tomorrow as it goes on today if this bill goes down."

Single page