It was Jack Barnes, a Republican senator from Raymond, who brought the charade to an end. Just moments into a meeting of the commission created to study the legal implications of same-sex marriage, Barnes moved the question.

"Everybody's dancing around it. I thought I'd bring it to a head," Barnes said of his motion to recommend that the state amend its constitution to ban gay marriage. Moments later, with little or no debate, the panel did just that.

The vote was 7-4, about the same split that would have occurred if the commission hadn't taken testimony from a score of experts, accepted hundreds of pages of comment and sat through hours of sometimes raucous, acrimonious hearings.

The commission turned out to be what its sponsors, House opponents of same-sex unions, set it up to be: a kangaroo court whose real mission was not to find facts but to fight for a ban. It included staunch proponents of equal treatment for homosexuals and a majority whose minds were made up against it.

The panel got off to an inauspicious start. It did not meet for the first six months of its existence. When it did meet, much of the testimony it heard consisted of attacks on homosexuality itself, biblical interpretation and graphic talk of sex.

An analysis of the legal implications of a change in the law - the reason for the group's existence - got short shrift. Several committee members, including one who is openly gay, publicly said that they were verbally assaulted and feared violence during or after meetings.

The commission, which has until Dec. 1 to issue its report to the Legislature, effectively did so with last week's vote. The question it asked itself is, "Are we capable of assessing this issue objectively?" Its answer was no.

The group was charged with finding fact, not making recommendations. Its advice that the state adopt a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex unions has a snowball's chance. It won't make it out of the Legislature, let alone past voters.

New Hampshire can be slow to adopt new social policies. It is not yet ready to agree about same-sex marriage. But it is tolerant - far too tolerant to enact a ban or tamper with its constitution out of fear.

The study panel missed its chance to move this important public debate forward. It will leave the state less informed and more divided for its efforts. And it will slow an inevitable march toward equality.

New Hampshire is surrounded by states that legally accept, to one degree or another, the belief that two people of the same sex can enter into a binding relationship, one that should confer upon them most if not all the rights of traditional marriage.

Vermont accepts civil unions, and Maine recognizes domestic partnerships. Massachusetts permits gays to marry, as does New Hampshire's northern neighbor, the province of Quebec. All do so because it is the right thing to do, and because there is no evidence that same-sex marriages have any effect at all on the marriages of heterosexual couples.

It was not the commission's place to endorse same-sex marriage any more than it was to seek to ban it. Its job was to assess the legal ramifications of same-sex unions. It could have done that by analyzing the effect same-sex union laws have had in other states, but it failed to do so.

Now it should simply disband.

------ End of article

Single page