Committee hears that NJ's civil unions are not equal to marriage

Question:

Since the NJ legislature was required by court order to provide equality to sam-sex couples, and since the commission was mandated by the same decision, does the commission have any enforcement options? If it finds that civil unions are not equal (as we all knew they would not be) do they refer the problem back to the legislature or to the courts?

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:38:13 AM CDT

I'm going to risk showing my ignorance.

But is the ultimate goal for same-sex couples to have all the legal and financial rights heterosexual couples have? Rights aside, marriage is just a ceremonial or religious institution, isn't it?  Is the 'marriage' tag important to gay couples other than rights they would provide?

---

by: Josh @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:01:57 AM CDT

Josh-

I personally don't care about the word. Fact is - I can already get 'married' in the church(es) of my choice. But it is a loaded word, and it is a legal term in the realm of civil marriage.
Civil equivalents don't offer the same rights and responsibilities if they are not recognized in other states or by the Federal Gov't.

I have no rights if they disappear when I'm on vacation, or if I'm taxed for benefits that others are not taxed for.

So yes - I want all the legal and financial rights. In all States and through the Feds. For that we need the marriage tag because DPs, CUs and other designations do not carry the same weight.

---

by: Carolyn in Baltimore @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:31:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

SJC got it right

The word is one of the benefits, so you can't have all of the benefits under a different name unless the language changes.

"Marriage" does confer all of the political rights, but it is more than that and we should not shy away from claiming more than that. A gay couple who are in a lifelong relationship and raising children together not just the same as two elderly sisters who care for each other.

Also, no church should be forced to bless a union that it does not choose to recognize, and no church ever has been. The Catholic church does not have to marry Protestants or Muslims or divorces, because it is a sacrament. However, many churches do bless same-sex unions and the government has no business telling them that they can't. For religious gay people, marriage can be just as holy and spiritual an institution as it is for straight people.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:08:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair Question, Josh...

...and thank you for asking it.

I think the ultimate goal of those of us who are gay is to have all the legal and financial rights, yes.  I think the wrinkle is that "marriage", even though technically a religious or ceremonial institution, is also codified in so many ways by the State (and the states).  These legal and financial rights we argue for are a result of the State recognizing marriages and granting those rights to couples who are married.  The tag wouldn't be as important if it weren't for the many rights and responsibilities that it automatically confers, no questions asked, when applied to heterosexual couples.

I would add something to the debate that often gets lost, I think, and that is that we also want the responsibilities conferred by the State that come with marriage.  For example, the responsibility to make medical decisions for one another.  (I personally consider this a responsibility, not a "right", that I accept when I become half of a committed couple.)  My partner and I are fortunate enough to now live in a state (NJ) that allows me to exercise that responsibility.  A few years ago we lived in Virginia, a place in which hospitals could legally prevent me from even visiting my partner were he to be admitted.  So I think these sorts of responsibilities go hand-in-hand with the rights.

(I should also be clear here - I like VA alot.  It's a beautiful state and we had a great quality of life in the area outside DC in which we lived. I don't really have much against Virginia in general, just against the legislature. LOL)

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:50:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Personally, I don't care

what it's called, but as noted the term "marriage" is how it's referred to in the overwhelming majority of statutes.  Religious marriage is not the same as civil marriage but the term "marriage" is used to refer to them both.  As it stands now, "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or whatever translate to "marriage lite".  As I said, the name is immaterial as long as the rights and responsibilities are the same.  So far, that ain't happenin'.

---

by: Jami @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 15:01:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get up to speed

"Rights aside, marriage is just a ceremonial or religious institution, isn't it?"

No Josh, that's not exactly right.  Here in California the state statutes governing marriage are called exactly that...."Marriage and Family Statutes".  "Marriage" is the state government's "tag" for exactly that...."marriage."  The ceremonial or religious part is optional....

If you're are hetero and married in New Jersey you say "I am married".. If you're homo and have a civil union you say what?...."I am civil unioned."

Recently I rented a car in another state which does not recognize my relationship in any way.  If I rented the car in California, my "spouse" could be signed on at no cost as second driver.  But in red state, my California Domestic Partnership is not a spousal equivalent....couldn't say I was married....had to pay.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 16:37:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Homos Unite!

Join a Union!

http://openmike.word...

Karen, also, check out Avis when you rent - they recognize domestic partners anywhere.  Well, they are supposed to anyway.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:09:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

supposed to but

Yeah, that's what they said about Budget.....not so in red Montana....the women wouldn't back down from "spouse means married."  I least I made her swirm a little bit....made her listen to what the laws in California were....

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 12:08:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stuart Rabner- Supreme Court Justice?

  I hope all decisions relating to civil unions are decided outside the Court. Stuart Rabner may be the next Chief Justice and his position on "gay rights" is not clear. I believe he will rule in favor of traditional marriage.
  He made public statements regarding his outlook. He is extremely narrow minded and the community should be looking into his opinions. We may be stuck with him for 30 years.

evie litwok

---

by: thetippystory @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:25:46 AM CDT

Civil Unions and cultural heritage

The thing that hit me like a ton of bricks after I got married was the power of the word marriage itself, and all the cultural coral around it. 

When I say "my husband" every person I meet has a personal cultural tag attached to that.  Where before some people were in a limbo-land of how to behave around my identity and relationship (at work, etc), the moment I got married they all became far more comfortable. My relationship was "normal."  They had pre-defined comfortable ways to interact with the word.

Even people I would otherwise expect to be snarky have failed to act out their prejudice because the word forces them to realise how ignorant they're being.  They fall back on "normal politeness," which is an utterly wonderful change.  Slagging someone's legal spouse to their face is like speaking ill of the recently dead, people shy away from it, because it can turn back on them too quickly. 

Then there's the whole subject of social rites-of-passage.  I'm the oldest of a big family, and I was the last to get married.  It became very clear to me that in many cultures you aren't an adult until you get married and start a family.  Those same cultures label gay men as immature, eliding the fact that they are denied the passage ritual itself. 

Everything changed when we got married, no not right away, but positively.  I never thought I'd live to see the day. 

So don't let up the pressure on your legislatures, and don't stop changing minds by coming out! 

---

by: Canuk @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 16:17:17 PM CDT

Nice post, Canuk.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 16:38:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seconded.

Fantastic encapsulation of what many of us are thinking.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:12:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am not exactly sure my question was answered.

I understand that marriage infers a lot of things legally and financially. I am just wondering if there is a magic, for lack of a better word, that being 'married' carries for some of you other than just the practical advantages that have been discussed.

---

by: Josh @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:08:42 PM CDT

I think...

...you will probably find a wide variety of opinions on how important the word is.  I think we've tried to elaborate on some of our views, but certainly there are many different thoughts on the cachet (cache?) of the word 'marriage'.

Canuck's comment above is one of the better sociological explanations I think.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:12:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Suburban

---

by: Josh @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:17:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also suspect

the answer to your question is going to be largely a personal one that varies depending on whom you ask.

---

by: oddjob @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 00:37:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, actually Jami did answer it.

So I have a question for those of you who don't really have any magical affinity for 'marriage' other than the tangible benefits it gets for you:

Would you find it acceptable if any two people, regardless of situation could create a legal 'coupleship' that would gain them every legal, financial, and other tangible advantages married couples get? This could be an arrangement entered into solely for those advantages. It could be any two adults, regardless of their relationship; college roommates, coworkers, son/mother-in-law, woman/nice old lady across the street.

As I have said, I don't like it when certain adults have legal rights and privileges other adults don't have. Why does it have to be limited not only to married heterosexuals, but also to the romantically involved? Why can't it be ANY two people?

---

by: Josh @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:15:40 PM CDT

My thoughts...

Personally, I have no objection to that whatsoever.  From  strictly a civil rules standpoint, I think that's a good option.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 20:54:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What societal benefits accrue to extending it to those not romantically involved?

I haven't made up my mind one way or the other.  I've only ever thought of it in terms of those who are romantically involved, so I'm not sure I understand what advantage is gained by extending it further than that.

---

by: oddjob @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 00:40:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

People need help, but not everybody is in a romantic relationship.

Everyone needs looked after at some time. Why restrict this help only to those who can play the game of love? As with gays now, why withhold benefits from some folks that you give to others? Isn't the romantic component arbitrary?

---

by: Josh @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:11:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, you've given me something to chew over in my mind.

---

by: oddjob @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 21:46:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, you guys have shown me two things I haven't thought of before.

e.g. the reason for the hate crime designation and the idea that special legal benefits to one group and not all others is wrong, as with married heterosexual couples.

I am happy if I can return the favor:)

---

by: Josh @ Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:33:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

uncoupling benefits

If I ran the zoo, the first thing I'd do would be provide health care for everyone, regardless of their spousal or parental relationship, like most other industrialized countries do. Remove that as a perk of marriage.

Then I would set up a registry where anyone could choose one any other adult to be their next of kin. This person would have the right to make medical decisions, funeral arrangements, ride in an ambulance, visit in the hospital, and inherit intestate.

Then I would have everyone designate their social security beneficiary, much like they have to do with a private retirement plan. Minor children would still automatically receive benefits in the event of a parent's death, but each adult could designate the person who would receive their retirement benefit should they die, still subject to windfall rules (fair ones -- but that's a completely different animal). I realize this would be additional work for the SSA. Job creation! Yeah!

Uncoupling these from marriage would go a long way to rendering it unnecessary and relegating it to the realm of religion. This doesn't cover anything near every benefit of marriage, but that's where I'd start dismantling.

Queers get accused of destroying traditional marriage. Actually, that's very much what I'd like to do. I understand the need/desire to have it opened to everyone while it's what we have, but I'd rather see it completely changed anyway.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:01:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not liking this option

Josh, I think I understand where you're coming from. I agree everyone should have equal rights and privileges. But this option, to me, is like comparing those dreaded apples to oranges.

Domestic partnerships, civil unions, "coupleships" (BTW, I love that term), Michigan universities "other qualified adult"/"other eligible individuals" or persons of interest benefits are alternative relationship terms to get around the fact that very vocal homophobes are ranting and raving about the queers getting "special rights." If these alternatives group everyone together perhaps we'll have less homophobes ranting and raving.

Those of us who are fighting for marriage equality want the same benefits, rights and responsibilities that loving, committed, romantically involved straight couples have. Whether civil or religious the word marriage is a term we all understand. All those other terms are open to interpretation, as we are seeing in the states that offer them. Couples who are registered in DP's, CU's, CS's, OQA/OEI, POI are not being treated equally by employers, insurers, public and private institutions, etc., etc., etc.

Josh.....I have a question for you. Would you, as a straight man, want to be in a legal relationship with the woman of your dreams and not have the ability to know how your relationship is going to be treated by your employer, insurer, mortgage lender, hospital, bus driver, etc., etc., etc.???


You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.  

---

by: Dianne @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 14:45:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts does not have full marriage equality

Lets face it, there is no full marriage equality in Massachusetts either since those marriages are not recognized by the federal government which means there can be no portability once a couple moves out of state, no matter if New Jersey or New York approves same-sex marriage.  No occupant of the White House is ever going to approve a federal amendment allowing Gay marriage, ever.  Our federal system of government won't allow it now that this current administration has done irreparable damage by urging states to enforce DOMA.  In those states where DOMA is law, not even second-class civil unions are permitted.  Were we a parliamentary democracy, then we would stand a better chance.

Robert, NYC.

---

by: Robert71350 @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:13:21 AM CDT

An ammendment is not needed

All Congress has to do is overturn DOMA. If they don't have the spine to do that, they can simply recognize same-sex marriages that are performed by states in good faith. It would not be very hard (although it is not inevitable) for the Supreme Court to find that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires other states to recognize Mass. marriages. However, that ruling is only likely if more than one state allows same-sex marriage (and calls it marriage) and more Supreme Court justices are appointed by Democrats, not Republicans.

It may happen in a decade, it may take 30 or 40 years, but as long as we have marriage in Mass. and there is no federal ammendment, it seems almost inevitable.

And don't knock the federal system too hard - if it weren't for federalism we wouldn't be able to make incremental progress in favorable states. France and Italy are much more favorable than the US to gay marriage, but they can't have it anywhere because of their strong central governments (and the influence of the Catholic church in those governments).

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:30:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To say NEVER is far, far too strong.

In between 1948 and 1968 there are only twenty years, yet in this country the difference between them is literally the difference between one world and another.  In 1948 the California Supreme Court was the first to rule that interracial marriages could not be forbidden.  Before then NO state allowed them and no court ruled such laws illegal.  Just 20 years later (I know, 20 years can seem like an eternity, but by the time you're in your 40's it no longer seems that way) the Warren Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that NO state could ban such marriages.

We don't know what will happen between now and when we die.  Why assert so certainly that a president will never opt to help arrange same sex marriages?  There is already a TON of anecdotal evidence strongly suggesting that those now in their early 20's are firmly in favor of gay rights, including marriage.  When I was in my early 20's in the early 80's that was by no means true.

---

by: oddjob @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 21:53:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's marriage and NOT marriage

What is so difficult about this concept?
If ALL couples (gay and straight) received ALL government sanctioned Rights by civil unions, and marriage was merely a religious service which garnered NO government rights, then I'd agree to civil unions. As long as one group receives "special rights" from our government (at ALL levels) because they can use the word "marriage", and my same sex partner and I can't, then civil unions only codify our second class status under the law.
There's equal and NOT equal.
What is so difficult about this concept?

---

by: underbear1 @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 23:45:14 PM CDT