Tag: gay marriage

Maine has introduced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry, making it the second state after New Jersey to introduce such legislation. The question, however, is whether either state is really any closer to passing the legislation.

I don’t know enough about Maine politics to know whether the bill — “An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom” — will go anywhere. But according to a letter from Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, that was posted by Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend, it could happen.

Democrats have a 20-15 majority in the State Senate and a 95-54 majority in the House. Some House Republicans are backing a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for gays and lesbians, but we’re hearing quiet support from unexpected allies on the right.

The referendum process, however, could mean a reversal if it comes to that, but we remain a long way off.

As for New Jersey, where Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, has introduced a bill, it is unclear when — or even whether — the Assembly will get to hear it and discuss it.

I want to point readers of the blog to our editorial — which ran in many of our papers — on same-sex marriage.

Every time a rational study is done on civil unions, they are found wanting.

Enter the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which issued a report today confirming what it said nearly a year ago — and what most of us have been saying since well before the state Supreme Court put civil unions in play.

The panel found that

the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

The report continues:

The experience of this couple amply demonstrates that the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separate status of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed same-sex couples. Even if, given enough time,
civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to
those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples
are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they
are “not good enough” to warrant true equality.

This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.

The commission offers these recommendations:

• The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;
• The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey;
• and The Domestic Partnership Act should not be repealed, because it provides important protections to committed partners age 62 and older.

There already is legislation on the table, sponsored by Reed Gusciora,D-Princeton, in the Assembly. The legislation, which is before the Assembly Judiciary Committee — chaired by Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Plainsboro — would define marriage

as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship. The bill provides that whenever the term “marriage” occurs or the term “man,” “woman,” “husband” or “wife” occurs in the context of marriage or any reference is made thereto in any law, statute, rule, regulation or order, the same shall be deemed to mean or refer to the union of two persons pursuant to the bill.

At the same time, the legislation would exempt religious officials from having to perform marriages — an important provision that allows the Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act to remain consistent with both the religion clause of the First Amendment and the state’s constitution.

Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, D-Camden, has long supported same-sex marriage, reaffirming that support today:

“As I have said many times before, same-sex marriage in New Jersey is only a matter of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’

“The Commission’s report should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society’s last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents.”

A great quote, of course. So why has the Gusciora bill been languishing all this time? One could assume that, given the authority over the legislative process enjoyed by the speaker in the Assembly, he could have made sure that the Gusciora bill was on the docket. Instead, it remains with the Judiciary Committee a full 11 months after officially being introduced.

Juan Melli, a columnist with PolitickerNJ, blames the Assembly’s failure — along with the state Senate’s and Gov. Jon Corzine’s — on politics and fear. He hopes — which is not the same thing as being hopeful — that the

report might provide enough cover to get a few more sponsors on the “Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act,” which calls for full marriage equality. It might also serve as supporting evidence in a hypothetical court case challenging the current law; say, if a married couple from Massachusetts moved to New Jersey and found that their marriage was magically transformed into a civil union. It could also push those who are teetering on the edge of the issue, like Jon Corzine, who supported marriage equality while running for governor in 2005, later said he only supported civil unions, and most recently said he has “significant concerns” about civil unions actually providing equal rights.

More likely, however,

the legislation is unlikely to be considered at least until the next lame duck session, and conventional wisdom among head-counters is that there are enough votes to pass the bill in the Assembly, but not yet in the Senate.

The problem with voting during a lame duck session is that we’re never more than a year or two away from the next election, and if there’s one thing politicians care about more than anything, it’s keeping their jobs. The Assembly and governor are up for re-election in 2009, followed by congressional elections in 2010, and then the state Senate in 2011. No matter who is up, expect them to make excuses based more on fear than reality.

That would follow the historical pattern, of course:

Corzine didn’t want to bring up the issue this year for fear that a fired up right wing would hurt Democrats’ chances in the presidential election. Despite the narrow passage of the well-financed, anti-gay Proposition 8 in California, Barack Obama carried the state by 24 points — a remarkable 14 point improvement over John Kerry’s margin in 2004. So while the president-elect’s nation-wide coalition included the so-called “Racists for Obama”, he also received a large number of votes in California thanks to the “Homophobes for Obama.” Unless you believe the electorate is cleanly bifurcated, neither result should be surprising.

Nor should the result have come as a surprise to political observers in New Jersey. A recent Zogby poll commissioned by Garden State Equality found that only 21 percent of voters think that legislators who vote to give same-sex couples the right to marry would not be re-elected. But don’t expect that to stop the Chicken Littles from predicting the vault of heaven to collapse and men to rain down upon us all.

So, yes, civil unions have been a failure and allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. It might even have public support. But don’t expect the Legislature to do anything in the short term — it just doesn’t have the cajones.

I have been rather optimistic about the chances that same-sex marriage would be legalized in New Jersey, that the pendulum of equality was swinging toward full citizenship for gays and lesbians here and across the country.

Yes, full citizenship. To deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry — to obtain the legal benefits of marriage (some several hundred major and minor rights and benefits) — is to place same-sex couples within a different class than the rest of us.

I’ve written about this literally dozens of times, and yet we continue on this one-step-forward-two-steps-back movement on the issue. The New Jersey state Supreme Court requires same-sex couples be given the same rights as straight couples, but punts on the question of calling it marriage — and the state Legislature and governor call it a day.

California and Connecticutt courts rule that same-sex couples can get married, and California voters — and others in three states — change the state constitution to make it illegal once again.

The entire thing is incredibly disheartening.

In California, same-sex couples and their supporters seem to have been awakened from a complacency that is surprising, finally rallying hard to show their anger. Many at the rally told reporters that they had been blind-sided over the support for Proposition 8 and didn’t work hard enough to make the case against it. The ACLU is suing and there is likely to be another state ballot initiative should the suit fail, this time thanks to organizing by the state’s gay community, looking to reverse last week’s marriage ban.

Alfred Doblin at The Record of Hackensack says the California vote should spur gay-marriage supporters — both gay and straight — in New Jersey to action.

New Jerseyans should take note of what happened in California. A majority of voters in a very liberal state were not so very liberal when it came to the subject of same-sex marriage. It was the California high court that legalized same-sex marriage. And it was the California people who took that right away.

The victories that the gay community has achieved in the courts, including New Jersey’s, can be taken away by voters who are exercised enough to change state constitutions. It is not winning the hearts and minds of justices or legislators that will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. It’s the hearts, minds and vote-casting hands of the electorate that matter most.

And changing hearts and minds, creating what he calls a “paradigm shift,” will take a lot of work.

That means shoes and pumps hitting the pavement, convincing people face-to-face. Few Americans voted for the first African-American president because a celebrity said he or she was voting for Obama. They voted for Obama because they heard and saw something that resonated deep inside them.

On the subject of same-sex marriage, Americans are resonating with fear.

He adds that

In 2009, the Legislature may readdress the issue of same-sex marriage in New Jersey. And maybe the Legislature will vote to allow it. But unless a majority of New Jerseyans support that decision, it will be a decision carved in sand.

Basically, the fear has to be addressed, has to be alleviated, if same-sex couples are to gain the rights to which they are entitled.