Gay-Marriage Fight Heads to New Jersey

NOVEMBER 7, 2009

Gay-Marriage Fight Heads to New Jersey

By KEITH J. WINSTEIN
WSJ

The battle over gay rights will move to New Jersey and the federal government, advocates said, after Tuesday's narrow rejection of same-sex marriage by Maine voters in a hard-fought contest. The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January. Mr. Corzine, a Democrat unseated in Tuesday's election, said he would sign such a bill. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, opposes same-sex marriages.

"New Jersey is at the very top of our list, and it's going to happen in the next few weeks if it happens at all," said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriages. "They're doing it in a lame duck, because it's as far away from an election as possible."

Gay-marriage advocates have resisted "civil union" licenses, saying the separate term is demeaning and the status isn't honored by many employers. Some gay-rights advocates said, their priorities have shifted away from the ballot box and toward nonmarital issues. Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would prevent businesses from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or "gender-related" mannerisms. Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general, called the bill, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "a top legislative priority for the Obama administration."

"That's really an essential protection that we need on the national level," said Leslie Gabel-Brett, the director of education and public affairs for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group. About 20 states currently grant such protection to gays. Ms. Gabel-Brett said her group's priorities also focused on ending the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals, and on repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a male-female couple for federal purposes, such as filing taxes.

Neither gay-rights activists nor their opposition said they expected imminent attempts to repeal same-sex marriage in the four states that currently grant it -- Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont -- or in New Hampshire, which will begin granting such marriages in January.. "Every civil-rights movement has setbacks," Ms. Gabel-Brett said. "It's tempting to feel like the public debate is going in the wrong direction, but that's really not the case. We now have five states where same-sex couples can marry. Six years ago, we had none."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125754593369434611.html (subscription)

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A4

:kick:

that the question is not deliberatively confusing, unlike Maine and CA and that the bigots do not have the financial advantage.

We need all hands on deck to get this passed ASAP. Garden State Equality (the group trying to win marriage) is looking to go viral online through Facebook, so if you're a user please become a fan of theirs on FB.

They also need some $$ to run ads.

Is the use of the word "marriage." Civil Unions for all would get this thing through the gate in any number of states. Tiltling at the same windmill time and time again is a waste of energy. It will continue to fail in the short-term, as long as the word "marriage" is used. Let's be pragmatic here.

Younger voters are more open-minded usually and the old people are dying out.

If you want to wait 10 to 20 years, that's one thing. But in the meantime, being obstinate over a word denies equality to a group of people.

as straight couples who want to get MARRIED?

and the law has failed miserably

It's not what I said, but am interested in how this works or doesn't in NJ.

many HR depts at employers do not recognize civil unions, so gay couples cannot get health insurance through their partner's employer.

Also many hospitals do not recognize civil unioned partners as the next of kin.

Garden State Equality has a great website outlining everything

www.civilunionsdontwork.com

is that it creates a separate structure that would have to be updated and maintained every time "marriage" is added to or taken away from. essentially, there are many rights that are due gay couples that a CU might not guarantee them such as death bed, or child rights. In this case the separate but equal principle fails to apply.

This would pass in many states, the rest would follow over time.

If you think that passing gay marriage has no chance but changing the entire marriage system over to Civil Unions would, then i think you are highly diluted. There is no way that the same people who wont lift a finger to vote up gay marriage to honor equal rights will change over to Civil Unions to honor equal rights.

And in states where this is narrowly defeated, that would be enough. I've met people on that side of the fence who would be fine with the concept of Civil Unions for all. They have a specific problem with the word "marriage" being used to define any union where members are of the same gender. It would pass.

Sure... I'd love to see this tried just once in any state, if only because I'm getting really frustrated seeing this proposed over and over again. I think you would find out very quickly how just many homophobes will cling desperately to the term "marriage". The point is they WANT marriage, they just don't want anyone else to have it. If you think they are willing to have their marriages declared "civil unions" then you are sadly deluded. Hell, it's damned hard enough just getting civil unions now for GLBT citizens.

if they aren't willing to extend existing rights to others, why in the world would the be willing to "downgrade" their own rights for those same others.

doesnt make any sense.

they're against the word "marriage" but fine with "civil unions"? Because it makes them feel superior to gay couples?! If there's no difference, why should it matter other than to make them feel gay couples are "less than" straight couples?

I wish that we'd all have the same rights that are protected under the constitution. It would be nice. I hope this group of activists can sneak this one in.

Now that is irony.