It's official!
The great state of NJ has become just the third state in the U.S. to allow civil unions, following in the footsteps of Vermont and Connecticut, yet falling short of full-fledged marriage such as in Massachusetts. This is no doubt a historic victory for the GLBT community, even as they vow to continue the struggle to claim the full recognition of lawful marriage. The decision however, may usher in the beginning phase of making that happen...
State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, predicted gays' push for full marriage rights would pay off within a few years.
"The legal rights for same-sex couples will be known as they should be, under the banner of marriage," said Weinberg, who has been one of the Legislature's leading advocates for homosexual rights.
New Jersey's first, and so far only, openly gay legislator said the new law is a big step closer to that goal: "The distance between civil unions and nothing is greater than the distance between civil unions and marriage," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer.
There is a compelling argument which speculates that if the GLBT marriage equality fight were refocused to push for, "civil unions," instead of, "marriage," which in turn would bestow all the state protected rights of marriage but lack the federal ones, then the community would be more successful in gaining partnership rights. Take as evidence this data:
Legislators have thus far been unable to agree on a bill with that sensitive language. A recent Quinnipiac University poll said that 60 percent of New Jersey voters support allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions. But they oppose same-sex marriage by 50 percent to 44 percent.
But it begs the question as to why it is acceptable to designate GLBT Americans in a different social class than heterosexual Americans? Clearly denying them federal rights and creating specific and distinct language and legislation for them is a guilty admission of segregation. The obvious answer of course is that this is not in any way shape or form acceptable. But taken in the context that one must crawl before they can run, it might be valuable to consider that ultimate social equality might be more realistic if this intermediate goal is set first.
However it is approached, the fight for equality is a constantly uphill one:
Mayors, judges and clergy can perform civil unions, but at least one mayor — Steve Lonegan of Bogota — has said he would refuse. Attorney General Stuart Rabner said any official who performs marriages but refuses civil unions would violate state anti-discrimination laws and face legal action.
To clarify Rabner's statement:
NSL: Although mayors, judges and other public officials authorized to marry people may decline to do so, those who officiate at weddings must also perform civil unions, Attorney General Stuart Rabner said in an opinion letter released yesterday.
"Where a public official elects to be available generally to solemnize marriages, he or she must also be available generally to solemnize civil unions," Rabner wrote. His letter did not address the obligations of clergy members, who have greater constitutional rights to refuse to perform nuptials that violate their religious tenets.
Not that there should be any doubt about the inferiority of civil unions to marriage but I think that this next point illustrates it glaringly:
The new law will require the state Division of Vital Statistics to design new "civil union" certificates and to modify death certificates, according to Tom Slater, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Senior Services. He said local registrars will be trained to implement the new law before it takes effect.
And even more so:
"We'll be even more grateful in a couple of years when civil unions go the way of separate toilets, separate water fountains and sitting at the back of the bus," Goldstein said.
Even still, as suggested previously there is much hope for a bright future:
NSL: The legislation establishes a 13-member commission to evaluate whether civil unions protect same-sex couples and their families as well as full-fledged marriage would.
Corzine, while not endorsing same-sex marriage, did not rule it out.
"I would sign a bill that labeled it 'marriage,' but that is not where my personal views are because I was brought up in the context of religious beliefs that would define marriage as between a man and a woman," Corzine said.
Corzine's personal views aside, the prospect of gay marriage in NJ is looking very good. I strongly feel that as states take matters into their own hands (as they are doing with the minimum wage and stem cell research) we will soon see a ripple effect boil over into other states and ultimately up to the federal level. But this underscores the need to ensure a progressive platform in Washington. Ultimately, it is a major victory, but an incomplete one:
NorthJersey: The new law gives same-sex couples the right to adopt children together, inherit each other's property and visit a partner in the hospital. Other rights include the ability to make medical decisions and protections against testifying against each other in legal proceedings.
Same-sex couples, however, are limited only to rights in New Jersey. Federal law recognizes marriages as only those between a man and a woman. Partners in a civil union here will not receive each others Social Security payments or any other federal benefit.
That kind of paradigm shift may take some more time, but a huge step forward was enabled by voters in November. And maybe, if the more conservatively-minded individuals read the news more carefully, they would see that many NJ companies would flourish if same-sex marriage were passed.
It's really a no-brainer and I congratulate all the people in NJ who can share a more complete life together because of this landmark decision.
(all emphasis mine)