"What is so insidious about (this bill) is that it seeks to deny citizens rights which they have not even been formally granted," he said.

Theuner's testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee contrasted starkly with that offered by Bishop John McCormack a few hours earlier. McCormack, the head of New Hampshire's Roman Catholics, rejected gay marriage as undermining "the cornerstone of our society."

"Human love is between a man and a woman and results in the creation of children," McCormack said.

Current New Hampshire law already forbids gays and lesbians from marrying. But the bill's supporters said a change was needed to close a "loophole" that could force the state to recognize same-sex unions performed out of state.

Those supporters pointed to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that essentially legalizes same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts legislature is now considering an amendment to the state constitution to forbid gay marriage, but Sen. Russell Prescott, the prime sponsor of New Hampshire's bill, said New Hampshire could not wait for other governments to act.

"We need to close a loophole that allows other states to dictate our public policy," said Prescott, a Kingston Republican.

The bill was overwhelmingly approved by the state Senate last month. Gov. Craig Benson has said he will sign the bill if it passes in the House.

But many of the bill's opponents said it claims to defend against a threat that does not even exist.

Marcus Hurn, a law professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center, dismissed talk of a "loophole" as overblown and legally unsound.

"If it exists, it is a very tiny and, as a practical matter, inconsequential loophole," Hurn said. "This is a shotgun aimed at a hypothetical fly."

The Massachusetts attorney general said last month that his state's law would not allow gays and lesbians from other states to obtain a marriage license there.

Other opponents of the bill said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, already permits states to refuse to accept same-sex unions performed elsewhere.

Yesterday's hearing was in Legislators' Hall, the only room in the State House large enough to accommodate the crowd. Some people quoted Scripture to support their points; some relied on statistics. Some appealed to "enduring moral values" while others railed against "activist judges."

Theuner and McCormack, the two bishops, also had contrasting interpretations of how gay marriage related to the decades-long fight to expand civil rights. Theuner referred to a 1997 law that expanded the state's civil rights law to include gays and lesbians. The current bill would undermine the progress achieved in that law, Theuner said.

"If the rights of any of us are at risk, so are the rights of all of us,"he said.

McCormack referenced that same 1997 law, but he said it proved that restrictions on same sex marriage did not subvert civil rights.

"We can respect the rights of all and still preserve and uphold marriage as it has always been understood," he said.

"In fact, we are compelled to protect individual rights, but I urge you to protect the common good of our society."

END