In what lawmakers called a victory for fairness and equality, the House voted by a nearly 2-to-1 margin yesterday to endorse creating civil unions for same-sex couples.

The 243-129 vote gave supporters hope that the bill will pass the Senate this spring and be signed into law by Gov. John Lynch, to take effect Jan. 1. That would make New Hampshire the fourth state to adopt civil unions, after Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. Only Massachusetts allows legal marriage for same-sex couples.

"It is definitely a historic moment. I don't think anybody can deny that it's a historic moment," said Rep. David Pierce, an Etna Democrat who is openly gay, after the vote. Pierce, who spoke in support of the bill on the House floor, said he was pleased by the 114-vote margin and the presence of 27 Republicans in the majority.

"Most people thought it was just the right thing to do," he said.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen, a Concord Democrat, said she was impressed by the bipartisan House vote and thought the bill would be received favorably in the Senate. "We haven't done a head count on the bill, but I think many of the senators recognize through this discussion that we need to extend the same civil rights to all our citizens," she said.

Lynch, though, has not said whether he would sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature. "I am opposed to gay marriage, but I do think also that the rights of families need to be protected," Lynch said yesterday. "I don't think it's right to discriminate."

The bill passed by the House would establish same-sex civil unions with the same "rights, responsibilities and obligations" as heterosexual marriage, differing in name only. Some opponents yesterday argued that it would harm traditional marriage or trigger a lawsuit that might force the state to create full marriage for same-sex couples.

Other opponents said the bill was "discriminatory" because it would create special rights for unmarried same-sex couples that would not be available to other adults who want to live together and share legal benefits, such as friends or siblings - a position the House Republican office reiterated in a statement after the vote. But the House rejected a series of attempts to send the bill back to committee, expand the scope to cover all adults or otherwise amend it.

Supporters of civil unions called those moves attempts to delay or distract lawmakers from the main issue: whether to extend the nearly 400 legal rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples who have been denied them until now.

"The time is right. These families have waited long enough for recognition, legitimacy and legal relief," said Rep. Bette Lasky, a Nashua Democrat. "Please do the right thing - what you know in your heart is right. Help our daughters, sons, friends and neighbors live their lives the way I believe we all want to live: with the people we love, in peace and dignity."

Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, said Lasky and other Democrats were trying to advance "the Massachusetts agenda" - which he also called "a national agenda," "a hidden agenda" and "some special agenda" - on New Hampshire. He said civil unions would lead "down the slippery slope" to same-sex marriage.

"It's not right. The good people of New Hampshire don't deserve it," he said. "We demand that marriage be between one man and one woman, and keep your choices in the bedroom."

Others said they could not support civil unions unless they were extended to all people. "This bill would prohibit two elderly brothers wanting to live their life out together or two same-sex cousins who want to live their life together so they get the benefit of health insurance," said Rep. Robert Rowe, an Amherst Republican. "That is simply wrong. It is discrimination." (next page »)