The New Hampshire House passed a bill Thursday raising the legal age of marriage to 18, sending the legislation to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk after years of advocacy.

Senate Bill 359, which passed 192-174, states that “no person below the age of 18 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.” Under present law, that age is 16.

The bill would also repeal statutes that currently provide legal avenues for minors to marry. Currently, RSA 457:6 allows parents and guardians for those between 16 and 18 to petition a family court to grant permission for the marriage. That petition must include an indication of whether the Division for Children, Youth and Families has ever been involved with the child, and it allows the court to conduct an interview with each minor getting married without their parents present. SB 359 would eliminate the process entirely.

If signed into law, SB 359 would make New Hampshire one of 12 states that have banned marriage under 18 with no exceptions, a list that includes Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to UNICEF. 

Maine currently allows 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with written consent from their parents, legal guardians, or custodians. But any marriage of minors in Maine would be invalid in New Hampshire if SB 359 becomes law. 

The bill comes after years of pressure by Rep. Cassandra Levesque, a Barrington Democrat. In 2018, Levesque, then 19 and not yet a state representative, advocated for the Legislature to raise the marriage age to 18 from 14; House and Senate Republicans agreed to pass a bill to raise it to 16 instead. Later that year, Levesque won her first election to the House and has continued to press for the age to be raised to 18. 

Levesque argued raising the age would help reduce exploitative situations. 

“The committee found that this bill is important to be in law because we know that age of majority does not amount to maturity, and that there is a greater risk of human trafficking and domestic violence without these protections,” she said in remarks in the House Calendar introducing SB 359. 

Republican lawmakers have opposed raising the marriage age in recent years. On Thursday, Rep. Margaret Drye, a Plainfield Republican, argued there were some circumstances in which marriage was a beneficial option for those under 18. 

Drye recounted two times when a friend or a family member had obtained judicial approval for a marriage below the age of 16 because of an unexpected pregnancy. 

“They elected to get married because that offered to the young woman things that she didn’t have before: stability, provision, protection, and a chance for a young family to be a family before a baby arrived,” she said. “The goal was still the same: marriage and raising a family together. They just got there in a little different timeline.”

Rep. Jess Edwards argued that taking away the possibility of marriage could lead more 16- and 17-year-olds to abortion.

“… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” he said. 

And Rep. Tony Lekas of Hudson cited his marriage to Rep. Alicia Lekas, also of Hudson, which he said began when he was 16. “And we didn’t need any outside input from anyone,” he said. “We’ve been married almost 53 years.” 

Rep. Josh Yokela, a Fremont Republican, introduced two amendments that would have made an exception to the 18-year-old marriage requirement if the minors had been emancipated by a court. 

But House Democrats countered that children should not be married at 16 or 17 under any circumstances. And they disagreed that emancipation should be a qualification. 

“The fact of the matter is that emancipated minors cannot vote; they cannot purchase or consume tobacco or alcohol; they cannot purchase firearms,” said Rep. Peter Petrigno. “Why then would we allow for an age exception to marriage and nothing else?” 

Petrigno argued that emancipated children are some of the most vulnerable children, and could be taken advantage of by adults if allowed to marry.

“Marriage is an emotional lifetime commitment based on love, not a solution to an unintended pregnancy,” he said. “We should not be putting children in a position to be taken advantage of by unsavory adults.”

Both of Yokela’s amendments were voted down. The bill will head to Sununu’s desk in the coming weeks. 

CONCORD — By the end of 2027, New Hampshire’s iconic 603 area code may reach its limit.

There are only so many seven-number combinations that can be put after the number 603, the state’s phone area code. In 2023, the North American Numbering Plan Administrator warned it hit the maximum as soon as 2027. That could mean New Hampshire will have to add a second area code in the near future.

To delay it, state lawmakers have introduced the aptly titled Senate Bill 603, which directs the New Hampshire Department of Energy and the Public Utilities Commission to do all it legally can to adopt telephone conservation measures and maximize the number of available numbers.

“We lost the Old Man of the Mountain nearly 21 years ago. Our first-in-the-nation primary is under attack, even Daniel Webster went to Massachusetts to run for Senate. But we still have three numbers that are unique to the Granite State: 603,” said Grant Bosley, the deputy chief of staff for the New Hampshire Senate, at a public hearing in front of the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee in April. He introduced the bill on behalf of the prime sponsor, Senate President Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro.

“603 is more than an area code. It’s an identity. We have songs and bumper stickers, and political slogans, and craft beers and T-shirts,” said Bosley. “603 is New Hampshire, and New Hampshire is 603.”

Transgender people a big focus of GOP: Why are there so many bills about gender identity in New Hampshire?

How could New Hampshire extend life of 603?

Some ways to preserve the code are reclaiming numbers that are no longer in use and requiring providers to return assigned blocks of numbers not being used. The bill comes with a one-time cost of $100,000 to $300,000 to hire a consultant to identify the measures New Hampshire could take.

Bradley introduced the bill in part at the request of New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who issued an executive order last year that established the “Don’t Overload the Code” initiative. To extend the life of the code, it directed the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Economic Affairs to reclaim unused telephone numbers.

The state is following the example of Maine, which also acted to preserve its code when told 207 would hit its limit by 2025. By limiting robocalls and changing forecasting and block requesting practices, the state was able to extend the life of the code until 2032, according to reporting by WMTW.

New Hampshire and Maine are two of just 11 states left with a single area code. However, according to Maine’s Public Utilities Commission, the whole country may run out of area codes by 2051.

Therefore, the efforts in New Hampshire won’t prevent the need for a second area code someday, but it would move the date down the line, said Bosley. The New Hampshire Department of Energy testified it’s optimistic it can extend the 603, perhaps even until the federal government determines how to number across the country when they run out.

But that inevitability is part of the reason Rep. Thomas Cormen, D-Lebanon, wrote the bill should be voted inexpedient to legislate in the committee’s minority report. 

“Whether or not we attempt to extend the life of the 603 area code, we will run out of phone numbers in the 603 area code sometime in the next few years,” wrote Cormen. “The bottom line is that this bill spends money just to kick the can down the road.”

The bill passed the Senate in March by a voice vote. The House Science, Technology and Energy Committee narrowly recommended it to pass by a vote of 10-9, and it was scheduled to go to the House for a full vote Thursday.