New Hampshire
Democrat fighting New Hampshire’s child marriage exemption speaks out
A New Hampshire Democrat who has spent years campaigning to ban child marriage in the state has condemned lawmakers who voted to amend the law to allow 17-year-olds to marry if they or their partner are in the military.
State Representative Cassandra Levesque told Newsweek the amendment recently passed by the GOP-controlled New Hampshire House of Representatives was done “without facts, without evidence of need, and no proof of any child” asking for such an exception.
Newsweek has contacted the New Hampshire Republican Party for comment via email.
Why It Matters
New Hampshire became the 13th state to outright ban anyone under the age of 18 from getting married, with the law coming into effect on January 1, 2025.
No other state that has banned child marriage has attempted such an amendment for military personnel or their partners.
provided
What To Know
The New Hampshire House voted Thursday to approve House Bill 433, which would allow individuals to marry at 17 if either party is on active duty in the military if they have consent from a parent or guardian.
The vote passed 193–178, largely along party lines, with 14 Republicans joining all but one Democrat in voting against the bill. Supporters said the measure would allow minors access to benefits such as military housing, which are otherwise unavailable to unmarried couples.
Levesque was one of those who voted against the amendment. She was just 17 and still in high school when she began campaigning to change New Hampshire’s child marriage laws, which at the time in 2018 allowed girls as young as 13 and boys of 14 to marry with parental and court consent.
Levesque has denounced the attempt to amend the state’s child marriage ban. She said it not only fails to protect children from potentially marrying adults many years older, but also exposes them to “abuse and situations that children are just not prepared to handle.”
The Democrat added the amendment does not consider whether children may be “emotionally or mentally” equipped to care for older military spouses, who may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), loss of limbs, and other physical or mental health conditions that can affect service members.
State Representative Debra DeSimone, one of six GOP lawmakers who sponsored the amendment, said on March 20 that the law change would allow couples and young parents to receive military-provided housing and other benefits.
Representative Dale Girard, the only Democrat who supported House Bill 433, said the amendment would support military families who “may face unique circumstances,” while still largely maintaining the legal marriage age at 18.
Minors are still allowed to marry in a majority of U.S. states. Many permit 16- or 17-year-olds to wed with a parent or guardian’s consent, while others require both parental consent and a judge’s approval. Some states, like New Mexico, allow minors to marry if they are pregnant or already have a child.
Delaware was the first state to ban child marriage in 2018. Others that have followed include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed the state’s ban into law in June 2024, prohibiting anyone under 18 from obtaining a marriage license.
What People Are Saying
State Representative Cassandra Levesque told Newsweek: “A girl who’s being forced to marry a man in the military should get just as much protection as a girl who’s being forced to marry a civilian.
“Being a military spouse can be incredibly isolating, especially if the couple moves far from home and continues moving repeatedly, as often happens. This can deprive children of their network of family and friends, instead embedding them in the service member’s network, which compounds their vulnerability to abuse and situations that children are just not prepared to handle.
“If we are talking about a child marrying an older service member, we need to consider that children are not emotionally or mentally equipped to handle being caregivers to their military spouses. They are not prepared to deal with PTSD, loss of limbs, and the mental disorders that our military often suffer.”
Levesque also highlighted the increased risk of domestic violence in a child marriage.
“We do not allow exceptions to the drinking, smoking, or driving ages; we set those ages based on when people can safely engage in those activities. We should do the same with marriage.”
Representative Dale Girard told Newsweek: “I voted for HB 433 because it provides a reasonable exception for active-duty military members by allowing 17-year-olds to marry under specific conditions. This bill ensures that the age of consent remains 18, but with a provision for military families who may face unique circumstances. It also includes safeguards like parental consent for nonmilitary 17-year-olds, balancing personal freedoms with necessary protections. Ultimately, this bill supports both the needs of military families and the welfare of minors in New Hampshire.”
Representative Debra DeSimone said in a statement Thursday: “Military members can be moved from one base to another frequently. Leaving a potential spouse and possible children unable to avail themselves of possible base housing could prevent a parent’s ability to assist in raising their child, which could seriously affect children, since children historically do better with both parents in their lives. The military does not provide any benefits to a nonmarried partner. This bill also requires written permission from a parent or guardian.”
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley told Newsweek: “Instead of working with House Democrats to lower property taxes or address the state’s housing crisis, House Republicans are laser-focused on passing a loophole to bring back child marriage after banning it last year. It’s ridiculous, and [Governor] Kelly Ayotte’s silence in the face of yet another national embarrassment from New Hampshire Republicans speaks volumes.”
What Happens Next
The child marriage amendment will now head to the state Senate for a vote. It is unclear whether it will receive the necessary support to pass New Hampshire’s upper chamber.
Update 3/23/2025 10:23 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley.
New Hampshire energy regulators have rejected a proposal from Unitil to charge all customers in their area for the additional costs incurred by their own electricity supply programs, instead of just the customers enrolled in those programs.
State officials, community power advocates, and commercial suppliers had opposed that plan, saying it would harm competition in the energy industry and could violate state law.
The Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire called the rejection a “significant victory for consumers, municipalities, and the competitive energy market.” The change could have raised prices for their customers, who rely on utility companies to deliver power but get their actual supply of electricity through their town or county.
Unitil, one of the state’s three main utility companies, made the proposal after the Public Utilities Commission directed the company to submit a filing with a position on how reconciliation charges should be managed.
But what is a reconciliation charge? And why does it matter? Let’s break it down.
When you get an electricity bill, you’re paying a rate that your utility company estimates will cover their costs for buying you that electricity.
But in New Hampshire, rates are set twice a year, and in that time period things can change. So rates also include reconciliations from the previous time period – added charges if the company underestimated costs, or reimbursements if the company overestimated.
Those reconciliation charges show up on the bills of people who use that electricity: utility “default supply” customers. That doesn’t include those enrolled in community power, who are charged for their electricity supply through their town or county’s program. And it also doesn’t include anyone using a competitive energy supplier.
Two changes have shifted the dynamics of utility rates in recent months and put reconciliation charges front and center.
First, more and more customers are moving to community power programs, leaving utilities with fewer people using their default service. Sixty-four municipalities and four counties are enrolled in community power programs with the Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire, with other communities using contractors like Standard Power.
And second, New Hampshire state regulators have directed the state’s investor-owned utilities – Unitil, Eversource and Liberty – to use a new process for buying power. Instead of locking in prices for six months, they’re now expected to buy some power from a shorter-term “spot market.”
That introduces more uncertainty to utility costs, said New Hampshire’s consumer advocate Don Kreis, and exposes customers to more risk.
That makes the question of reconciliation charges more pressing. Who should foot the bill if a heat wave or a cold snap makes prices skyrocket in the middle of a rate period, and the cost of electricity is much higher than what a utility predicted?
That’s where this decision comes in. Unitil asked regulators to approve a plan to collect those costs from everybody they deliver power to, even people buying their electricity from other suppliers. The company argued that was an equitable solution. Their default service is considered a last resort for customers who may not wish to join an alternative supplier – a “safety net” of sorts.
Additionally, Unitil said, the increasing popularity of community power programs has caused their own programs to take a major hit. That means, the company says, that customers using the “safety net” electricity supply are paying higher rates to reconcile underestimated costs.
Unitil proposed adding reconciliation costs to a part of the electric bill everyone pays, including people who have their power delivered by Unitil but provided through a different supplier.
In the order regulators issued this week, the Public Utilities Commission directs Unitil to keep collecting reconciliation costs only from customers signed up for their utility’s default energy supply.
But, the commission left the question somewhat open, saying they may explore changes to reconciliations in the future. Other utilities have similar questions still pending with the commission.
New Hampshire
NH News Recap: Top corrections official resigns; State expects dip in Canadian tourism
NHPR is nonprofit and independent. We rely on readers like you to support the local, national, and international coverage on this website. Your support makes this news available to everyone.
Give today. A monthly donation of $5 makes a real difference.
NH regulators reject Unitil plan to shift some costs to community power customers
NJ lotto: Powerball numbers for Saturday, May 24, 2025
New fire starts west of Grants
Obituary for Aris Mora Moles at Market Street Chapel
New rides, more WiFi coming soon to 2025 North Dakota State Fair
-
Technology1 week agoLove, Death, and Robots keeps a good thing going in volume 4
-
Technology1 week agoMeta asks judge to throw out antitrust case mid-trial
-
World1 week agoCommissioner Hansen presents plan to cut farming bureaucracy in EU
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoClassic Film Review: ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is a Lesson in Redemption | InSession Film
-
Politics1 week agoDem senator says 'no doubt' Biden declined cognitively during presidency
-
News1 week agoVideo: Doctors Heal Infant Using First Customized-Gene Editing Treatment
-
News1 week agoNew Orleans jailbreak: 10 inmates dug a hole, wrote ‘to easy’ before fleeing; escape plan found
-
World1 week agoLeak: Commission to launch PFAS clean-ups in water resilience strategy