civil unions – Hank Kalet

A victory for the public over the private

Ocean Grove cannot discriminate against gays, despite claims that forcing it to allow civil unions to be performed on its pavilion conflict with the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association‘s religious beliefs and first-amendment rights.

The community is a “nearly 1-square-mile section of Neptune Township” controlled by the Methodist organization, according to The Star-Ledger. The group has “used the pavilion for both religious services and public events” for many years, but was sued by a pair of Ocean Grove residents, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, when it nixed their 2007 request for use of the pavilion for their civil union ceremony.

According to a Civil Rights division press release,

an investigation found that the refusal to permit the civil union ceremony violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination and did not violate First Amendment Rights. The Division investigation found that the Camp Meeting Association had been permitting the public to use the Boardwalk Pavilion for weddings and secular events and that the Association had gained a Green Acres tax exemption from the state Department of Environmental Protection nearly 20 years ago after a finding that the Pavilion will be open to the public “on an equal basis.” (Following filing of the civil rights complaint, the DEP rejected a renewal of the Green Acres tax exemption for the Boardwalk Pavilion in September 2007.)

The Finding of Probable Cause states in part, “When it invites the public at large to use it, the Association is subject to the Law Against Discrimination, and enforcement of that law in this context does not affect the Association’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion.”

What is striking to me is that the ruling echoes earlier state court decisions allowing protest groups access to public spaces, even if it does not specifically mention those earlier decisions (it focuses instead on properties owned by religious groups).

The ruling once again brings into focus the issue of a privatized public sphere — in this case, a pavilion used by the public but owned privately. The question of what rights the public has in a privatized culture — think of Twin Rivers in East Windsor, shopping malls like Quaker Bridge, privately owned space like Palmer Square — will only grow in importance as more and more of our lives falls under the auspices of commercial entities.

The rule that should apply — summed up by Lawrence Lustberg, cooperating attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in a comment to The Star-Ledger is that “once you open your facility to the general public, then it’s got to remain open on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

Separate and unequal

Read this story and explain to me again how the state’s new civil union legislation offers gays and lesbians the protections my wife and I enjoy.

Relevant paragraph:

Nevertheless, residents who work for companies headquartered in other states, and those whose insurers are based outside New Jersey, have found it difficult if not impossible to sign their partners up for health insurance. Unions and employers whose self-insured plans are federally regulated have also denied coverage in some cases. Staff members in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms have questioned partners’ role in decision-making. Confusion abounds over the interplay of state and federal laws governing taxes, inheritance and property.

Timothy Zimmer, a computer programmer in Newark quoted in the Times story, offers this:

“Apparently the civil union law gave us all the rights of marriage, except the ones we really need.”

And here’s what Steve Goldstein, chairman of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, said in the same story:

“How can you call it equal protection when you have to go through hell maybe to get your civil union recognized?”

Seems a fair question.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

A story is a story, part II

Some responses to my post (and Editor’s Note) yesterday about the response we received to a story on a civil union ceremony in Monroe:

I just read your blog entry about writing a story about gay people in The Cranbury Press. I grew up in Cranbury my whole life and now live in NYC and I am 100 percent homo. Always have been. Always will be. It’s sad that people still have hatred for gay people and are small minded but good for you for printing a story like that. The world changes because of journalists like you. We can have the nationwide press tell our stories but it’s the little papers like The Cranbury Press that can make just as much of a difference. If I was a kid and read that story during my childhood growing up in Cranbury, I probably never would have forgotten it.

***

My husband and I along with many of our friends here at The ponds community inMonroe are supportive of the wonderful human interest story of the civil unionOf Steve Lourie and Frank Pisciotta, who finally earned the rights so longdenied them. They are fine human beings and we are happy to call them friends. We wish them the best. Please don’t let angry, small minded people deter youfrom reporting on important issues that have an impact on real human beings.

***

I am amazed at the reaction to your story on Monroe’s first civil union celebration. It certainly was newsworthy, and I found it most interesting. I am a regular newspaper reader, and there are many stories in which I am not interested, so I skip them. That is why I do not like TV news, which decides what news I must watch. The angry readers should get a life, and let other people live theirs.

I am a resident of The Ponds, happy that our community is so welcoming, and personally glad to have Stephen Lourie and Frank Pisciotta as neighbors.

***

It’s nice to know that not everyone is intolerant.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Editor’s Note: A story is a story

As I get older, I’ve found myself growing more intolerant of intolerance. The differences in people are what make them unique and the choices they make are their own, so long as they don’t harm anyone else. That’s my basic philosophy of life, I guess.

That’s why the calls and notes I received following our publication of a story on a Monroe gay couple’s civil union ceremony so disconcerting. There were cancelations of the paper and some choice words offered — including one letter writer who essentially compared me to the wicked of Sodom — but that’s fine. We ran the story because it was a good story on an important topic.

And I’d do it again next week.

What troubles me, however, is the level of vitriol — the hatred out there for people just trying to live their lives. Their union has no impact on the rest of us. It is no threat to my marriage, nor do I suspect it threatens anyone else’s. (That the state has not seen fit to call civil unions marriage is a travesty and another example of the Legislature’s unwillingness to lead.)

Frank and Stephen love each other and their love makes the world a better place. Can the same be said about Brittney and Kevin? Or about any of the other five-minute marriages that have become a Hollywood staple?

But I digress. The issue that came up was about my politics and whether it affects what I assign and where I place it. Essentially, I was accused of having an agenda.

Here, in it’s entirety, is the Editor’s Note I wrote as a response for today’s edition of The Cranbury Press:

A story is a story

Angry readers are a given in the newspaper business.

After all, not everything we do casts everyone in a positive light and not everyone might agree with the positions we take on the Town Forum page.

Politicians, for instance, tend not to like stories that raise questions about their actions or shed light on their failures. And I’ve lost count of the calls and e-mails I’ve received over the years regarding my criticism of the president and the Iraq War.

So it shouldn’t have surprised me that some readers took offense at a story on Monroe’s first civil union that ran on Page 1 of last week’s paper.

The piece, which included a Page 1 photo and several photos on the jump page, told the story of Stephen Lourie and Frank Pisciotta’s 30-year relationship and their decision to take advantage of the state’s new civil union law.

I received several calls complaining about the story — one called it “garbage” — and a handful of readers canceled their subscription.

One sent me this note, which is probably representative of the negative comments I’d received:

“I just canceled my subscription and I hope many more do! When The Cranbury Press sees fit to announce on the front page about a bunch of homosexual old men
it’s time to go. There are so many more important things going on in our community but it’s obvious you have another agenda other than reporting on what people really care about.”

Nearly everyone accused the paper, or me directly, of having an agenda, of using the news columns to push my point of view.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry — as I’ve written in my Dispatches column on numerous occasions. I believe a lot of things, but I never let my political beliefs color my news choices.

Iraq is an example. I have been a vocal critic of the Iraq War, but that has not prevented us from running stories on returning soldiers who remain supportive of the mission — most recently in February, when former Jamesburg Borough Councilman Carlos Morales returned from a five-month tour of duty in southern Iraq. The Morales story ran up front because it was an important news story with a local angle.

It is the same reason that we assigned the civil union story that ran on Page 1: It was news. It was the first civil union in Monroe under the state’s new and controversial civil union law.

It was that simple. No agenda, just a commitment to presenting the news — even if it makes some readers angry.

Let me know if you agree.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Nothing more than a baby step

Alfred Doblin in The Record reminds us that the civil union legislation that was adopted by the state and went into effect at midnight remains, at best, a work in progress. Plenty of gay couples will be able to “unionize” (and I don’t mean join the Teamsters), but they will remain outside the mainstream because they cannot be married like the rest of us.

Discriminatory legislation codifies discrimination. Civil unions that give all the rights of marriage without using the word “marriage” do not give all the rights of marriage. It’s that simple.

On a side note, Doblin makes mincemeat of one of the great canards in this debate — that civil unions and gay marriages will increase health care costs.

(Bogota Mayor Steve) Lonegan says if a municipal employee were to become civil unionized, that could increase his local budget because of the partner’s benefits. If a municipal employee gets married it has the same effect. What’s the alternative? Hiring only celibate, single people? That sounds like the Roman Catholic Church. And they’ve had a few problems with that employment policy of late.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.