Marriage | New Hampshire

Yes. On June 3, 2009, Governor Lynch signed a marriage equality bill (House Bill 436, An Act Relative to Civil Marriage and Civil Unions) that extended the right to marry to same-sex couples. The bill became effective January 1, 2010, simultaneously ending the availability of New Hampshire civil unions on the same date. On January 1, 2011, all existing New Hampshire civil unions were transformed into marriages.

Four years later, in Obergefell c. Hodges (135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015))La Cour suprême des États-Unis a fait de l'égalité du mariage une réalité nationale en statuant que la Constitution américaine garantit aux couples de même sexe le droit de se marier. Mary Bonauto, de GLAD, a représenté les plaignants lors des plaidoiries.Obergefell, les 50 États sont tenus de délivrer des licences de mariage aux couples de même sexe, et tous les États doivent respecter les mariages de couples de même sexe célébrés dans d'autres juridictions.

For more information about getting married in New Hampshire, consult GLAD’s publication, Comment se marier dans le New Hampshire.

Yes. New Hampshire will respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples regardless of where the marriage was performed, just as all states will now respect the marriage of a same-sex couple married in New Hampshire.

Yes. Thanks to the recent demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Windsor v. United States (133. S.Ct. 2675 (2013)), the federal government will recognize and respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples.

DOMA, a federal statute which defined marriage exclusively as the union between one man and one woman, once prevented same-sex spouses from accessing the 1000+ federal laws pertaining to marriage, including taxes, Social Security (including SSDI and SSI), immigration, bankruptcy, FMLA, federal student financial aid, Medicaid, Medicare, veteran’s benefits, and TANF. Happily, in 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional. GLAD filed the first challenge to DOMA in 2009, Gill v. OPM (699 F.Supp.2d 374 (2010)), and the legal framework developed in that case was used in many subsequent cases, Windsor compris. GLAD was also responsible for coordinating the Windsor amici briefs.

Unfortunately, one issue that has yet to be definitively resolved by Windsor et Obergefell concerns spousal benefits and self-insured health plans. While New Hampshire state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, self-insured health plans are governed by federal law. Title VII, the federal anti-discrimination statute, only prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin—sexual orientation is not explicitly included. As a result, some self-insured employers claim they can legally deny benefits to same-sex spouses.

Luckily, this issue is far from settled. Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) took the position that Title VII’s prohibition against ‘sex discrimination’ encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation (see ____ v. Foxx, Agency No. 2012-24738-FAA-3 (July 15, 2015)).

If your employer is discriminating against you in spousal healthcare benefits on the basis of sexual orientation, contact GLAD Answers.

Oui, car comme indiqué ci-dessus, les couples mariés de même sexe ont droit à tous les avantages accordés aux couples mariés de sexe différent.

Cependant, jusqu'à ce que le Obergefell c. Hodges Suite à la décision du 26 juin 2015, de nombreux couples de même sexe vivaient dans des États où des lois anticonstitutionnelles sur le mariage empêchaient les couples de même sexe de se marier. Ainsi, au décès de leur conjoint, ils n'ont pas pu remplir la condition de survivant de la Sécurité sociale, à savoir avoir été mariés pendant neuf mois.

Pour corriger cette injustice, Lambda Legal a intenté deux poursuites, Ely c. Saul et Thornton c. Commissaire de la sécurité sociale et a réussi à obtenir un moyen pour les couples de même sexe de demander des prestations de survivant de la sécurité sociale, même s'ils ne se sont jamais mariés (Ely c. Saul) ou ont finalement pu se marier mais étaient mariés depuis moins de 9 mois lorsque leur conjoint est décédé (Thornton c. Commissaire de la sécurité sociale). 

Ces deux décisions permettent aux couples de même sexe, exclus du mariage en raison de lois étatiques discriminatoires et donc non admissibles aux prestations de survivant de la Sécurité sociale, de déposer une demande. Cependant, le succès de cette demande repose sur la fourniture de documents suffisants pour prouver à la Sécurité sociale que la seule raison pour laquelle ils n'ont pas satisfait à l'exigence de neuf mois était la législation étatique discriminatoire.

Le lien suivant fournit des informations plus détaillées et contient une FAQ pour chaque action en justice et répertorie certaines des manières dont vous pourriez être en mesure de fournir la documentation nécessaire pour être admissible à la prestation de survivant : Informations destinées aux conjoints et partenaires homosexuels survivants, auparavant exclus des prestations de survivant de la sécurité sociale en raison de lois étatiques inconstitutionnelles sur le mariage | Lambda Legal. 

Il existe divers documents juridiques qui peuvent protéger la relation d’un couple, que le couple n’ait pas de relation juridique formelle ou qu’il soit déjà marié.

1. Accord ou contrat de relation : A couple has the option of drafting a written cohabitation agreement, outlining their respective rights with regards to property, finances, and other aspects of their relationship. Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the subject, these agreements should be enforced like any other contract. A number of states, Massachusetts included, explicitly enforce cohabitation agreements. Although a couple can choose to use a cohabitation agreement to make plans for the custody and support of children, a New Hampshire court will not uphold any agreement it finds to contravene the child’s best interests.
2. Durable Power of Attorney: A couple can choose to grant each other the durable power of attorney, allowing one partner to make financial decisions on the other’s behalf in the event of incapacity or disability. The requirements are minimal: any competent person may appoint another person as their “attorney-in-fact,” although the power of attorney form must be signed and notarized. If no appointment is made, a family member will be empowered to make decisions for the incapacitated individual.
3. Advance Directive for Health Care: A couple can choose to each create an “advance directive,” allowing them to make medical decisions on one another’s behalf in the event of an emergency. Absent an advance directive, medical care providers look to next- of-kin to make health care decisions for an incapacitated individual. If an unmarried couple wants to make decisions for one another, they need an advance directive.

An advance directive has two parts: a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care and a Living Will. In the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, you appoint a person to act as your health care agent and make medical decisions for you when you are incapacitated. You may also express your desires about end of life issues, including nutrition, hydration, and other life-sustaining treatments. The Living Will is a short statement about whether you want life-sustaining treatment continued when you are near death or permanently unconscious. You should give a copy of the advance directive to your doctors and may also consider giving it to family members.

An advance directive may either be signed by yourself and two witnesses, or signed by just yourself in the presence of a notary public. The following individuals do not count as witnesses: your spouse or heir, beneficiaries under any will or trust you may have, and the person you are appointing as your health care agent. Only one witness can be an employee of your healthcare provider. An advance directive can only be revoked by you.

If you later become incapacitated and a guardian is appointed for you, the appointing court should not revoke your health care agent’s authority unless there is clear and convincing evidence that doing so would be in your best interests.

1. Volonté: Without a will, a deceased unmarried person’s property passes to: (1) their children; (2) their family; or (3) if next-of-kin cannot be located, to the state. If you wish to provide for others not on this list, such as your partner, a will is essential. Even if you have few possessions, you can name who will administer your estate in your will. If you have children, you can also nominate someone to be their future guardian in a will.
2. Documents de planification funéraire : Upon death, a person’s body is given to his or her next-of-kin. This can mean that a person’s own partner has no right to remove the body or make plans for a final resting place. To avoid confusion and persuade relatives to honor your wishes, you can leave explicit written directions giving another person (such as your partner or a friend) control over the funeral and burial arrangements. While this document is not binding, it should help avoid complications in any but the most adversarial families. Some people include these instructions as part of a will, but since a will may not be found for days after death, it is preferable to give the instructions directly to the person you want to take care of matters, as well as to family members.
3. Guardianship: New Hampshire’s broad guardianship laws allow, among other things, an individual to nominate another person as the guardian of their person, estate, or both.68 The advantage of nominating a guardian in advance is that you are selecting the person to take over all aspects of your financial matters.

GLAD recommande de travailler avec un avocat sur ces documents.

Although forms are available, the form may not be suited to your individual needs and wishes. Moreover, an attorney may be able to better help effectuate your goals, for example, by drafting a will in a way which is more likely to deter a will contest by unhappy family members, or an appointment of a health care agent with very specific instructions. In addition, an attorney may help to navigate the legal uncertainties flowing from the areas of overlap between these documents. Réponses GLAD can provide referrals to attorneys who are members of GLAD’s Lawyer Referral Service.

Après Obergefell c. Hodges, same-sex spouses everywhere should be able to dissolve their marriages on the same terms as different-sex spouses. New Hampshire explicitly applies its divorce statutes to same-sex couples (see, e.g., In re Munson & Beal, 2016 N.H. LEXIS 180 (2016) (applying divorce statute to a same-sex couple)).

However, spouses should note that when New Hampshire courts divide marital property and award alimony, one of the factors a judge considers is length of marriage (NH RSA 458:16-a, II(a); 19, IV). Unfortunately for spouses whose partnership pre-dates marriage equality, the length of the marriage may not accurately reflect the true length of the relationship, resulting in an unbalanced division of assets. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Munson & Beal (2016 N.H. LEXIS 180 (2016)), addressed this issue and ruled that a judge may consider premarital cohabitation when dividing marital property. GLAD submitted an amicus brief in the case, Munson Amicus Brief.

If you are going through divorce proceedings in New Hampshire and believe your division of assets may be unfairly affected by length of marriage, contact Glad Answers.

Les couples de même sexe avec enfants qui se séparent devraient :

1. Soutenir les droits des parents LGBTQ+ ;
2. Honorer les relations existantes, quelles que soient les étiquettes juridiques ;
3. Honorer les relations parentales existantes des enfants après la rupture ;
4. Maintenir la continuité pour les enfants ;
5. Rechercher une résolution volontaire ;
6. N’oubliez pas que rompre est difficile à faire ;
7. Enquêter sur les allégations d’abus ;
8. Ne pas permettre que l’absence d’accords ou de relations juridiques détermine les résultats ;
9. Traiter les litiges comme un dernier recours ; et
10. Refusez de recourir à des lois et à des sentiments homophobes/transphobes pour obtenir le résultat souhaité.

Pour des informations plus détaillées sur ces normes, consultez la publication Protection des familles : Normes pour les familles LGBTQ+ à l'adresse suivante : Protection des familles : normes pour les familles LGBT. 

Not anymore. Effective January 1, 2010, New Hampshire stopped issuing civil union licenses; and effective January 1, 2011, all existing New Hampshire civil unions were converted into marriages by operation of law. If you have a civil union (or registered domestic partnership) from another state, New Hampshire will grant you the same rights and benefits, and hold you to the same responsibilities, as a married couple in New Hampshire. However, with the exception of Social Security, the federal government will not recognize your civil union.