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 kont Hodges (135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015)), Lakou Siprèm Etazini an te fè egalite maryaj yon reyalite nan tout peyi a lè li te deside ke Konstitisyon Etazini an garanti koup menm sèks yo dwa pou yo marye. Mary Bonauto, manm GLAD la, te reprezante demandè yo pandan agiman oral yo. Apre-Obergefell, tout 50 eta yo oblije bay lisans maryaj bay koup menm sèks, epi tout eta yo dwe respekte maryaj koup menm sèks ki selebre nan lòt jiridiksyon.

For more information about getting married in New Hampshire, consult GLAD’s publication, Kijan pou marye nan 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 kont Etazini (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 included. GLAD was also responsible for coordinating the Windsor amici briefs.

Unfortunately, one issue that has yet to be definitively resolved by Windsor epi 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.

Wi, paske jan sa di pi wo a, koup marye menm sèks yo gen dwa a tout benefis yo bay koup marye diferan sèks.

Sepandan, jiskaske Obergefell kont Hodges Nan desizyon ki te pran nan dat 26 jen 2015 la, anpil koup menm sèks te rete nan eta kote lwa maryaj ki pa konstitisyonèl yo te anpeche koup menm sèks marye. Donk, lè mari oswa madanm yo te mouri, yo pa t kapab satisfè kondisyon benefis sivivan Sekirite Sosyal la pou yo te marye pandan 9 mwa.

Pou korije enjistis sa a, Lambda Legal te depoze de pwosè, Ely kont Sayil epi Thornton kont Komisyonè Sekirite Sosyal la epi li te reyisi jwenn yon mwayen pou koup menm sèks yo te ka depoze pou benefis Sekirite Sosyal pou sivivan ki swa pa janm marye (Ely kont Sayil) oubyen yo te finalman kapab marye men yo te marye mwens pase 9 mwa lè mari oswa madanm yo te mouri (Thornton kont Komisyonè Sekirite Sosyal la). 

De desizyon sa yo pèmèt koup menm sèks, ki te eskli nan maryaj akòz lwa leta diskriminatwa e ki pakonsekan pa t kalifye pou aplike pou benefis sivivan Sekirite Sosyal, pou soumèt yon aplikasyon. Sepandan, siksè aplikasyon sa a depann de bay ase dokiman pou pwouve Sekirite Sosyal ke sèl rezon ki fè yo pa t satisfè egzijans 9 mwa a se te akòz lwa leta diskriminatwa yo.

Lyen sa a bay plis enfòmasyon detaye epi li gen FAQ pou chak pwosè epi li bay lis kèk fason ou ka bay dokiman ki nesesè pou kalifye pou benefis sivivan an: Enfòmasyon pou Patnè ak Konjwen Menm Sèks ki Sivivan ki te Eskli Anvan nan Benefis Sivivan Sekirite Sosyal Akòz Lwa Maryaj ki pa Konstitisyonèl | Lambda Legal. 

Gen plizyè dokiman legal ki ka pwoteje relasyon yon koup, kit koup la pa gen okenn relasyon legal fòmèl oswa si li deja marye.

1. Akò oswa Kontra Relasyon: 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. Pouvwa Avoka Dirab: 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. Direktiv Antisipe pou Swen Sante: 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.

Si pita ou vin enfim epi yo nonmen yon gadyen legal pou ou, tribinal ki nonmen an pa ta dwe revoke otorite ajan swen sante ou a sof si gen prèv klè ak konvenkan ki montre ke fè sa ta nan pi bon enterè ou.

1. Pral: 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. Dokiman Planifikasyon Antèman: 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. Titèl: 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 rekòmande pou w travay avèk yon avoka sou dokiman sa yo.

Malgre ke gen fòm ki disponib, fòm nan ka pa adapte ak bezwen ak volonte pèsonèl ou. Anplis de sa, yon avoka ka pi byen ede w reyalize objektif ou yo, pa egzanp, lè li ekri yon testaman yon fason ki gen plis chans pou anpeche yon konteste testaman pa manm fanmi ki pa kontan, oubyen lè li nonmen yon ajan swen sante ak enstriksyon byen espesifik. Anplis de sa, yon avoka ka ede w navige nan ensètitid legal ki soti nan domèn sipèpoze ant dokiman sa yo. Repons GLAD can provide referrals to attorneys who are members of GLAD’s Lawyer Referral Service.

Apre Obergefell kont 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.

Koup menm sèks ki gen timoun epi k ap separe ta dwe:

1. Sipòte dwa paran LGBTQ+ yo;
2. Onore relasyon ki deja egziste yo kèlkeswa etikèt legal yo;
3. Onore relasyon paran timoun yo ki deja egziste apre separasyon an;
4. Kenbe kontinwite pou timoun yo;
5. Chèche yon rezolisyon volontè;
6. Sonje byen, separe se yon bagay ki difisil pou fè;
7. Menen ankèt sou akizasyon abi;
8. Pa kite absans akò oswa relasyon legal detèmine rezilta yo;
9. Trete litij kòm yon dènye rekou; epi
10. Refize pou w sèvi ak lwa ak santiman omofob/transfob pou w rive nan yon rezilta ou vle.

Pou plis enfòmasyon detaye sou nòm sa yo, gade piblikasyon Pwoteje Fanmi yo: Nòm pou Fanmi LGBTQ+ yo nan adrès sa a: Pwoteje Fanmi yo: Nòm pou Fanmi LGBT yo. 

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.