Explaining Pilliod's gay marriage vote

Despite his consistent support for gay marriage, Representative Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) may have cast the deciding vote against the Senate version of the bill when it reached the floor of the House of Representatives last week. "Don't get me wrong," he said yesterday. "I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I didn't like the amendment doing away with civil unions."

After passing the House in April, the original bill authorizing gay marriage — House Bill 436 — was amended and adopted by the Senate in April. The Senate added language to the bill allowing both clergy and justices of the peace to refuse to perform or recognize marriages contrary to their personal theological beliefs. With that change the bill carried the Senate 13 to 11 with Senator Deborah Reynolds (D-Plymouth), who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee cast the decisive vote against the bill in committee, reversing her vote to ensure the majority.

On May 6, the House concurred with the Senate version, sending the bill on its way to the desk of Governor John Lynch. Days later, Lynch, who had repeatedly said that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, indicated that he would sign the bill only if the protections of the religious sensibilities of those who find the marriage of same sex couples abhorrent were strengthened.

Since HB-436 had been adopted by both the House and Senate, it could not be further amended. Instead, last Tuesday, the Senate added the language requested by the governor to House Bill 73 delineating the officials authorized to perform marriages, which was before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee held a brief public hearing and, by a three-to-vote recommended the bill to the full Senate.

The very next day, Wednesday, the Senate adopted HB-73 on a straight party line vote of 14 to 10 and sent it to the House. In the House, three votes were taken — the first to concur with the Senate, the second to kill the bill and the third to not concur but request a committee of conference.

Most supporters of gay marriage voted to concur with the Senate, but the motion failed, 188 to 186, with Pilliod, despite his consistent support for gay marriage throughout the session, voting "nay." Had Pilliod voted "yea," House Speaker Teri Norelli (D-Portsmouth), who left the podium to speak for gay marriage in March, would have broken the tie and the bill would have passed.

Pilliod said that although his support for gay marriage was undiminished, he voted against the bill because it would repeal the statute authorizing civil unions for same sex couples, which the Legislature adopted last year. "I am not in favor of doing away with the choice between civil unions and marriage," he said. "Marriage is a religious rite. I would rather separate the state from the church in these matters. A gay couple without strong religious affiliations or beliefs may prefer a civil union to marriage and they should have that choice."

Pilliod conceded that he voted consistently for the original bill, HB-436, although it too would eliminate civil unions, explaining that he did not want to jeopardize the bill, which passed with only a seven vote majority.

Opponents of gay marriage then moved to indefinitely postpone the bill, which would have forestalled the Legislature from addressing gay marriage until 2011. That motion also failed, 202 to 173, with Pilliod joining other supporters of gay marriage in opposition to the motion. Finally the House voted 207 to 168, with Pilliod in the majority, not to concur with the Senate, but to request a committee of conference. "I really voted no to get the bill to a committee of conference where the section to eliminate civil unions could be removed," Pilliod said. "We wound up where I wanted to be."

HB-73 will be referred to a committee of conference and, if the House and Senate reach agreement, will be sent to the governor together with HB-436, the legislation authorizing gay marriage itself. The adoption of HB -73, which contains the protections sought by the governor, is contingent on the adoption of HB-436 as is House Bill 310, which contains similar provisions applying to clergy and officials who perform marriages.

Altogether the authorization of gay marriage will require three separate pieces of legislation.

The Belknap County delegation vote on the gay marriage issue broke down along party lines — Democrats for and Republicans against, except for Gilford Republican Alida Millham, who voted yes.