HB1615

I'm a voter asking you to please protect citizens' right to marriage, and **oppose*** this bill. Thank you.

Please oppose this bill. This bill will hurt NH LGBTQ community and will help no-one. 23.8% of generation Z identifies as LGBTQ. Think about that for a moment. If we want young people to build a life in this state we must provide an environment where important freedoms are protected and all marriages are equal under NH law.. Separation between church and state matters.

This bill is a vaguely defined solution looking for a problem. It will cost the state millions to implement. Millions that could be spent to solve real problems...

Just let people marry who they like! Why are republicans so obsessed with people's sex lives!!!

Strong Opposition to HB 1615 HB 1615 presents a significant departure from the traditional framework of marriage by allowing consenting adults to enter into contract-based marriage agreements, bypassing the established marriage license requirements. This bill fundamentally undermines the legal and social significance of marriage as a recognized institution. By treating marriage as a mere contract, it risks trivializing the profound commitments associated with lifelong partnerships and could lead to a culture where relationships are viewed as easily dissolvable contracts rather than solemn commitments. This shift could have damaging implications for the stability of families and the social fabric of our communities. Moreover, the language used in the bill—such as the "plain-language presumption"—fails to account for disparities in education and knowledge that could lead to unequal understandings of the contracts being signed. This raises concerns about informed consent, particularly when vulnerable individuals may find themselves at a disadvantage, lacking the necessary legal or financial literacy to navigate the complexities of contract marriage agreements. The absence of state oversight in enforcing marital duties and rights could open the door to exploitation and abuse, especially for those who may not have access to independent legal counsel. By prioritizing individual agreements over the protections offered by traditional marriage laws, HB 1615 threatens to create inequalities that disproportionately impact marginalized populations, ultimately undermining the value of commitment and shared responsibility that marriage embodies.

All people should be able to marry legally whether gay or straight. This legislation undermines the LGBTQ community’s rights to equal protection. Please vote against it. Sincerely, Hillary Nelson

This bill reframes marriage as a private contract while removing the public protections that exist because intimate relationships are not equal-power arrangements. On the surface, HB 1615-FN sells itself as expanding freedom and choice: • Autonomy — “Consenting adults” choosing their own terms • Freedom from government — No licenses, no family court • Equality — “Equal recognition and protection” • Modernization — Marriage treated as a contract rather than a public institution But what this bill actually does is privatize marriage while stripping away the safeguards that exist precisely because marriage is not a business deal. Family law exists to address real-world power imbalances. Contract law does not. By barring courts from modifying contract terms, this bill places stay-at-home spouses, people who paused careers, and those experiencing emotional or financial coercion at serious risk. With no ability for courts to intervene, there is no safety valve. The removal of family court jurisdiction is not neutral—it is ideological. The bill explicitly states: “Disputes will be governed exclusively by civil courts, with family courts having no jurisdiction.” That is not efficiency. It is hostility to the very systems designed to account for human relationships. Family courts: • consider power imbalance • recognize caregiving labor • account for long-term dependency • evaluate the lived reality of relationships Civil courts do not. They enforce terms. Period. One of the most concerning provisions is the conversion clause, which allows licensed marriages to be converted into contract marriages. This opens the door to: • retroactive rewriting of marital obligations • pressure within existing marriages to “opt out” of protections • erosion of long-standing marital expectations And again—no court modification is allowed. This is how protections disappear without repeal. Children are referenced, but only narrowly. Yes, the bill preserves child support obligations—but that is a fig leaf. What about: • custody decisions? • valuation of caregiving labor? • the economic fallout for the caregiving parent? These are exactly the areas family courts exist to protect, and they are weakened by this bill. This is why HB 1615-FN should be a red flag—even for those who value personal freedom. It does not expand marriage. It dismantles marriage as a public institution and replaces it with: • private contracts • minimal oversight • no relational equity framework That aligns with broader efforts to weaken public protections by reframing their removal as “choice.” This bill does not modernize marriage—it privatizes it, stripping away protections that exist because intimate relationships are not equal-power contracts. For those interested in understanding how this approach fits into a broader *political agenda* of the Free State/Liberty Alliance in New Hampshire, additional context can be found at: https://granitestatematters.org/

To the House Judiciary Committee and Members of the New Hampshire House, My name is Kim Lawrence, and I am a New Hampshire resident. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on HB 1615-FN. This bill is NOT “Marriage Liberty.” It is marriage deregulation dressed up as freedom. HB 1615 creates a new framework called contract marriage under proposed RSA 457-B. Under this bill, contract marriage would: Become legally valid upon execution, with no marriage license required Allow optional filing of a Certificate of Contract Marriage, which would then be treated as proof of spousal status for administrative purposes Force marriage disputes into civil court (superior court or district division), while blocking family court from handling most contract marriage issues Instruct courts not to use traditional family law doctrines, including fairness-based remedies, unless the contract includes them Create a dangerous “plain-language presumption,” meaning courts assume contracts are understood even where there are gaps in education, knowledge, or bargaining power This structure creates predictable, real-world harm. What this means for real people This bill turns marriage protections into pay-to-play. Most couples do not hire attorneys to negotiate marriage terms, and most people do not understand the legal consequences of waiving protections until it is too late. A stay-at-home parent who invests years in unpaid labor raising children could be left without fair protection if the contract did not explicitly provide it. A spouse with less money and less access to legal advice is far more likely to sign terms they do not fully understand, then be trapped because HB 1615 limits the court’s ability to correct unfairness. In relationships involving coercion or control, this bill gives the controlling spouse a powerful tool: write the contract, lock in the outcome, and later hide behind waiver language. HB 1615 increases legal cost and complexity Civil litigation is not designed for family breakups. HB 1615 creates a two-court system: civil court for contract marriage disputes, and family court only for child support and child welfare issues. That means more filings, more hearings, and more legal fees. Working families will be priced out of justice. It creates a long-term risk to same-sex marriage protections Same-sex marriage is not symbolic. It is legal stability for families. HB 1615 creates a weaker substitute for licensed marriage that is less standardized and potentially harder to recognize outside New Hampshire. This bill also creates a future political and legal argument that could be used to undermine marriage equality: “We are not denying marriage because contract marriage exists.” That is how civil rights get rolled back, step by step, by replacing equal protection with a second-class alternative. Bottom line HB 1615 is an ideological legal experiment that: weakens marriage protections increases litigation and cost rewards the spouse with power and legal leverage creates instability for LGBTQ+ families and children New Hampshire should protect families, not gamble with them. Please VOTE NO on HB 1615-FN. Sincerely, Kim Lawrence

There is truly no need for this bill which would cost the state millions to implement. If people want to marry, they don’t want to “waive all implied spousal duties, presumptions, and legal standards” of marriage. The whole point of being married legally is to have those expectations that you can visit loved one in hospital, have clearer child custody rules, clearer insurance and beneficiary and tax rules. Additionally, my wife and I are rightfully worried that this bill would allow for the return of civil partnerships being the only option for queer folks. This state needs to specifically state that legal marriages outside of traditional/heterosexual are allowed no matter what Supreme Court does with obergefell case.

This bill removes protections for women that obtaining a marriage license with state oversight provides. These contracts are not regulated in any way and could say anything at all about obligations of one party or another. Adult is not defined. Consent is not defined. This bill effectively limits women’s options when they need to leave an abusive relationship, or leave for any reason. It effectively subverts no fault divorce because other parties and witnesses need to agree it is okay to dissolve the contract. This bill is harms women.

We don't need an alternative to marriage in New Hampshire.

There is no need for an alternative to marriage. This bill is a step backwards for marriage equality. I am strongly opposed to this unnecessary bill.

There is no need for an alternative to marriage. This bill is a step backwards for marriage equality. I am strongly opposed to this unnecessary bill.

This bill creates a second-class alternative to marriage in anticipation of a federal attack on marriage equality. This bill is a big step back for marriage equality. We should be enshrining marriage equality into law here and now instead of creating second-class alternatives.

What's the point of this bill? Why should we have two classes of marriage? This will cost a lot of money, and for to what benefit? And how to prevent discrimination based on this bill? If someone is denied a marriage license for being a same-sex or interracial couple on the basis that they can still enter into a contract marriage, that is a back door for discrimination. There's no good reason for this.

This bill is against the movement we have already established to allow equality of marriage to exist. Do not support this bill because it will harm many and it shows how backwards our country is moving. Its a disgrace that it is even brought to the table.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in opposition to HB 1615. Although this bill is framed as expanding choice, it removes many of the legal safeguards that licensed marriage provides. Marriage is not merely a private agreement; it is a legal framework designed to protect people during periods of vulnerability, including illness, caregiving, financial dependence, and relationship dissolution. HB 1615 replaces those protections with a contract-only model in which individuals must anticipate and negotiate every safeguard in advance. If a protection is not written into the contract, it does not exist, and courts are largely barred from correcting unfair outcomes. This shift is especially concerning for LGBTQ+ people, who are more likely to experience income disparities, family rejection, disability, immigration insecurity, or reliance on a partner for housing or healthcare. I identify as a lesbian, so this is personal for me. In these contexts, the default protections of marriage often provide critical stability. The bill’s “plain-language presumption,” combined with limited judicial review, makes it harder for someone to challenge coercive or imbalanced agreements. The bill also risks creating a two-tier marriage system. History shows that marginalized groups are more likely to be steered toward lower-protection alternatives, even when formal equality is promised. LGBTQ+ people fought for marriage equality to gain equal access to the same legal institution and protections, not a separate framework with fewer safeguards and uncertain recognition outside New Hampshire. Finally, HB 1615 would impose high costs on the state, including millions of dollars to update vital records systems and ongoing staffing expenses, without any clear public benefit or demonstrated need that is not already addressed through existing marriage and prenuptial law. Even if you don't support marriage for LGBTQ+ people, I'm sure we can agree that it's important to direct limited taxpayer dollars towards initiatives that address the needs of our communities, such as access to housing, healthcare, and good jobs. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1615. Thank you for your consideration.

This bill is a huge step back for marriage equality.

I am a 63 year old artist living in Bow with my wife, who is a cybersecurity architect, and our dog. We have been together for 23 years, married for 10. We planned our wedding in August 2015 thinking we would only be legally married in New Hampshire, but that was the summer that marriage equality became the law of the land. What a wonderful surprise and endorsement that was. My wedding was one of the happiest days of my life. I think people don't realize how much our marriage means to us. It was hard won. Married people contribute stability and value to a community. We have lived in the same home for 13 1/2 years, we pay taxes, we support local businesses, we are each made better because we are together. Our marriage is just as sacred to us as a heterosexual couple's is to them. We are not second class citizens. This bill is an erosion of our rights as Americans. The current regime is made more powerful by the "othering" of American citizens, which is what this billdoes. We are more alike than we are different. We are your neighbors. I urge you to reject this hateful bill.

As a woman married to a woman in the state of NH. We specifically looked at states marriage laws before choosing what state to move to. I am against making changes to marriage and making marriage weaker or unequal. We are raising a beautiful family in this state and we don’t want this bill to lead to separating different types of marriages. We want to feel safe in this state and not pushed out if Federal marriage equality is ever overturned. Support your people that support our beautiful state.

On religious, moral, economic and justice grounds, I do not support re-instatement of the death penalty. I am a Manchester NH native and a Sister of Mercy presently living in Nashua.

Position recorded without written comment.