News
With New York Out For Now, Marriage Shifts to New Jerseyby Kilian MelloyWednesday Nov 11, 2009 A Nov. 10 special session of New York lawmakers did not lead to an anticipated vote on a bill that would have brought marriage equality to that state. With marriage equality off the table in the Empire State for the time being, attention has shifted to New Jersey, where the loss of Gov. Jon Corzine and the impending tenure of Governor-elect Chris Christie have given the marriage equality debate a new sense of urgency.
The loss of marriage rights for gay and lesbian families at the ballot box in Maine has energized anti-gay pundits, who warn that New Jersey Democrats court disaster if they approve marriage equality in the waning months of Corzine’s administration. Moreover, in a parallel to New York’s State Senate, not all of New Jersey’s Democratic lawmakers favor marriage parity for same-sex couples, meaning that without Republican support there’s little chance for the measure to pass.
New York radio station WNYC reported that Richard Codey, the New Jersey State Senate president (who served as interim governor after Jim McGreevey resigned after a gay sex scandal), isn’t optimistic. "There’s not unanimous support within the Democratic caucus for it," Codey said. "There’s members that will not be voting for it. So clearly there would have to be some Republican votes for it to pass the Senate."
Governor-elect Christie, an opponent of marriage equality, would probably veto any such legislation that reached his desk, making a lame-duck legislative session a priority for marriage equality proponents.
In a Nov. 10 op-ed piece in the Asbury (N.J.) Park Press, Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state’s major gay-rights group, complained that the state’s existing civil unions provisions are inadequate. Only marriage parity will fix the problem, according to Goldstein.
Goldstein has long argued that same-sex families are still denied basic rights despite New Jersey’s civil unions protections. The state has seen several high-profile cases, such as UPS’ attempt to deny partner benefits, and a local dying police officer’s inability to transfer her pension benefits to her partner.
Goldstein reiterated that companies subject to federal law in this area--specifically, companies that create their own insurance benefits packages--are exempt from state requirements that otherwise would require the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian employees to be considered eligible for family benefits. Under the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage" Act from 1996, federal recognition of gay and lesbian families is banned.
Goldstein argued that the power of the word "marriage" would be enough to compel those companies in New Jersey to follow the example of companies in Massachusetts that also abide under federal, rather than state law. Massachusetts was the first state to extend marriage equality, more than five years ago; companies there chose to honor the marriages of their gay and lesbian employees even though they might have legally denied benefits to same-sex spouses under federal statute.
To have done so would have been a public relations problem, Goldstein argued. "Without the term ’civil union’ to hide behind, Massachusetts employers are loathe to discriminate against their gay employees," he wrote. "They would have to admit the reason for their discrimination."
The Nov. 11 Star-Ledger reported how both pro- and anti-marriage activists were preparing for a battle in New Jersey over the issue. The article also culled relevant comments from the blogs of pundits from both sides.
Local blogger Chris Wysocki argued that New Jersey’s lawmakers had a responsibility to voters to tackle the issue openly. "If these guys had any guts they’d put same sex marriage up for a statewide vote, or at least debate it during the normal legislative session when there is time for the public to weigh in. But they don’t want to face angry voters. They’d rather sneakily pander to a vocal minority and avoid any hint of accountability," wrote Wysocki.
At the blog The Outspoken Liberal, a heterosexual contributor named Caroline wrote, "Sure I’d like to get married someday . . . but no matter where I go, it will be legal for me to get married. That’s not the same for my gay friends or family members, and I’m ashamed of it. Why should I enjoy rights that others can’t? There’s something fundamentally wrong with it . . .
"I really don’t want marriage equality on the ballot in New Jersey-- this is why we must pass it before Corzine leaves office."
At blog Conservatives With Attitude, Sharon Soon hailed the defeat dealt to families in Maine, and cited the outcome there are as instructive for New Jersey lawmakers. "Consider the significance: New Jersey, where liberals [with Corzine’s defeat] suffered a major setback, should now think twice about passing a gay marriage bill in the next few months, as planned. Many state Senate seats will be up next year, and following a loss like today’s, it might not be the wisest action for our Democrats to pass legislation on such an issue that is proven to be unpopular and controversial. If the liberal state of Maine is any indicator, New Jersey voters aren’t likely to approve this action that our liberal legislature has been planning for months now."
Others pressed for full equality before the law for gay and lesbian New Jersey families. A blogger at Attorney.org wrote, "When thinking of same-sex marriage, consider this: In the past few decades, seemingly unapproachable issues such as women’s or minority rights have become synonymous with ’human rights.’ Isn’t it time that gay rights is included in that circle?"
Some came down in the middle, arguing both for the preservation of marriage as a special right solely to be enjoyed by heterosexuals but also advocating practical equality for gays and lesbians. Wrote a blogger named Jason at We Want Liberty, "Gays claim many insurance companies and businesses won’t recognize civil unions and that there are unfair limitations placed on them compared to married couples. Logic would tell us to fix civil unions, wouldn’t it? If that’s all this was about, it would be easy-and it would probably get bipartisan support--if a law was passed to ensure civil unions would be fully recognized by these different entities."
Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.
|
|
|
Email
Print
Share