New Hampshire

Democrat fighting New Hampshire’s child marriage exemption speaks out

Published

12 months ago

March 23, 2025

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.

State Representative Cassandra Levesque protesting child marriage laws in New Hampshire.

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.

Source link

Click to comment

New Hampshire

Possible 2028 Democratic White House contenders weigh in on Iran with New Hampshire voters

Published

11 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Possible 2028 Democratic White House contenders weigh in on Iran with New Hampshire voters

As the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran overtakes the foreign policy debate in Washington, two Democratic governors with potential 2028 presidential aspirations — Gavin Newsom and Andy Beshear — recently traveled to New Hampshire, introducing themselves to the state’s famously engaged voters. The two weighed in on the war and both criticized and questioned President Trump’s strategy and endgame.

“If a president is going to take a country into war, and risk the lives of American troops and Americans in the region, he has to have a real justification and not one that seems to change every five to 10 hours,” Beshear told CBS News after a Democratic fundraiser in Keene.

“This President seems to use force before ever trying diplomacy, and he has a duty to sell it to the American people and to address Congress with it,” Beshear continued. “He hasn’t done any of that. In fact, it appears there isn’t even a plan for what success looks like. He’s gone from regime change to strategic objectives and now is talking about unconditional surrender, which isn’t realistic where he is.”

Beshear also said he thought that Congress should have reined in Mr. Trump’s war powers.

“He is trying to ignore Congress. He’s trying to even ignore the American people,” Beshear said.

He went on to note that the president’s State of the Union address took place “three — four days before he launched this attack,” and Mr. Trump “didn’t even have the respect to tell the American people the threat that he thought Iran posed to us.”

Last week, both the House and the Senate failed to pass resolutions to limit Mr. Trump’s war powers and stop him from taking further military action against Iran without congressional support.

Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear speaks with voters in Keene, New Hampshire, on March 7, 2026.

Anne Bryson

For Newsom, the war with Iran constitutes part of a broader criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At an event last Tuesday in Los Angeles, Newsom had compared Israel to an “apartheid state.” Later, in New Hampshire, he sought to clarify his comment.

“I was specifically referring to a Tom Friedman [New York Times] column last week, where Tom used that word of apartheid as it relates to the direction Bibi is going, particularly on the annexation of the West Bank,” Newsom explained during a book tour event Thursday night in Portsmouth. “I’m very angry, with what he is doing and why he’s doing it, what he’s going to ultimately try to do to the Supreme Court there, what he’s trying to do to save his own political career.”

Friedman wrote that at the same time that the U.S. and Israel are prosecuting a war in Iran, within Israel, Netanyahu’s government has undertaken efforts to annex the West Bank, driving Palestinians from their homes; fire the attorney general who is leading the prosecution against Netanyahu for corruption; and block the government’s attempt to establish a commission to examine the failures that led up to the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of Jews by Hamas.

CBS News has reached out to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., for comment.

On Iran, Newsom said, “I’m very angry about this war, with all due respect, you know, not because I’m angry the supreme leader is dead. Quite the contrary. I’m not naive about the last 37 years of his reign. Forty-seven years since ’79 — the revolution,” Newsom said. “But I’m also mindful that you have a president who still is inarticulate and incapable of giving us the rationale of why? Why now? What’s the endgame?”

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks with political commentator Jack Cocchiarella at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on March 5, 2026.

Anne Bryson

Many attendees at Newsom’s book event said that the situation in Iran is a top-of-mind issue for them, too. Some said they’re “horrified” by what is happening.

29-year-old Alicia Marr told CBS News she decided to attend Newsom’s event because of his social media response to the war with Iran.

“There was one spot left, and I decided to pick it up, and it was due to his response to the war, that it is just unacceptable, and I would agree with that,” Marr said.

While some voters like Marr are eager to hear about where potential candidates stand on foreign policy, many at Newsom’s event said they care most about how potential candidates plan to address domestic issues.

“I’m more focused on getting the middle class back on track and fighting the oligarchy, and I’m less invested in international issues,” said Anita Alden, who also attended Newsom’s event,

“I wouldn’t call myself America first, but we have so many problems at home that are my priority,” she told CBS News.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who may also be weighing another White House bid, told Fox 2 Detroit last week that she “unequivocally opposes” the Trump administration’s military action in Iran and urged Congress to take action.

“If we want to stop Donald Trump with this random decision that he has arrived at, then Congress must act, and Congress must act immediately. The American people do not want our sons and daughters to go into this unauthorized war of choice,” Harris said.

Mr. Trump has lashed out against Democrats who have pushed back on his Iran strategy, calling them “losers” last week and arguing that they would criticize any decision he made on Iran.

“If I did it, it’s no good. If I didn’t do it, they would have said the opposite, that you should have done this,” the president said.

Source link

New Hampshire

Mass. man nabbed after allegedly driving over 100 mph in N.H.

Published

23 hours ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Mass. man nabbed after allegedly driving over 100 mph in N.H.

Local News

Police say the Attleboro man was driving 104 mph in a 55 mph zone on Route 202 near in Rindge, New Hampshire.

A Massachusetts man was arrested late Wednesday night after police say he was driving more than 100 mph on a New Hampshire roadway.

Officers with the Rindge Police Department stopped a vehicle shortly after 11 p.m. on Route 202 near Sears Drive in Rindge following a report of a car traveling at excessive speed, according to a statement from Chief Rachel Malynowski.

The vehicle, a 2020 Kia Stinger, was spotted traveling at 104 mph in a posted 55 mph zone, Malynowski said.

The driver, a 21-year-old man from Attleboro, was arrested and charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, according to police.

He is scheduled to be arraigned April 5. If convicted, the man faces a fine of at least $750, in addition to the court’s penalty assessment, and a 90-day license suspension, Malynowski said.